|
Tough Week for Kerry/Demise of the Kerry Campaign
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956557/
| quote: | A week's worth of bad news for Bush foes
Polls: Kerry behind in key states, tied in heavily Democratic ones
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 12:26 p.m. ET Sept. 10, 2004
WASHINGTON - While arguments over the authenticity of purported Vietnam-era memos consumed the presidential race Friday, new poll results held little but bad news for Sen. John Kerry.
advertisement
The memo battle was the culmination of a week’s worth of disappointment for adversaries of President Bush: Forensics experts say that documents CBS News used in a story contending Bush disobeyed an order from his Air National Guard commander in 1972 are suspicious and may be fakes.
Democrats had hoped the documents would damage Bush's re-election hopes.
On Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of Kerry's outspoken supporters, had said, "The documentation shows that the president was not being truthful. The president lied to the American people in the Oval Office."
But as the National Guard document furor raged, Kerry confronted a welter of discouraging poll numbers in states from Ohio to Arizona.
Even in heavily Democratic New Jersey, which Al Gore carried in 2000 by more than 500,000 votes, Kerry's lead over Bush had slipped from 20 points to a mere four, a new Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll found. Given the poll’s margin of error, Bush and Kerry are statistically tied in New Jersey, just as a Gallup poll this week found they are tied in neighboring Pennsylvania.
Polls are simply snapshots of a few days of respondents’ thinking, but Kerry cannot win the election if he loses New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which together supply 36 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.
Where to compete
Economists use the term “sunk costs” to describe outlays that have been made and can’t be recovered.
At some point in every presidential campaign, strategists must confront the issue of sunk costs for states that once appeared competitive, but now are starting to seem beyond reach.
In most of the dozen or so states that experts have considered toss-ups, neither Bush nor Kerry has yet reached the point of withdrawing money and advertising.
But Kerry and his staff may be at the juncture at which they must decide that the six days he has spent campaigning in Missouri since June 1 are sunk costs, not likely to be recovered.
A Gallup poll released Wednesday night showed Bush with a 14-point lead among likely voters in Missouri, 55 percent to 41 percent over Kerry.
Writing off Missouri and its 11 electoral votes would shrink the map for Kerry and expand it for Bush, allowing the president to spend more time in states that Gore won in 2000: Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. The poll data may even encourage Bush to take the battle to New Jersey.
Kerry's Ohio decision
In Ohio, Kerry may soon face perhaps an even more difficult choice than he does in Missouri: The Gallup poll released Wednesday night showed Kerry behind Bush by nine percentage points among likely voters there, winning 52 percent, while Kerry got 43 percent and Ralph Nader 2 percent
Since June 1, Kerry has spent 12 days campaigning in the state. Kerry and his Democratic allies ran a heavy television advertising barrage in the state in the month of August: Six of their 10 most heavily saturated media markets in the country were in Ohio, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project.
If he cannot pry Ohio’s 20 electoral votes away from Bush, who won the state by 165,000 votes in 2000, then the electoral math becomes extraordinarily difficult for Kerry.
To get the numbers to add up to the 270 he needs, Kerry would have to win all the states Gore won in 2000, then he’d have to add Nevada, with five electoral votes, and New Hampshire, with four, and then just one more state.
But what is that one more state, if not Ohio?
Perhaps Florida.
If not Florida, then Arizona? In an Arizona Republic poll released Thursday, Bush leads Kerry, by 54 percent to 38 percent, among 600 likely voters.
(As with the Gallup polls cited above, the Arizona poll’s margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.)
The Kerry campaign does not plan to run any TV ads in Arizona this month.
Seeking answers as to why Kerry is lagging behind Bush, some Democrats have turned to polling data; others, such as former Rep. Tony Coelho of California have cited errors Kerry’s advisers made in trying to explain his position on Iraq.
Public views on Iraq
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released late Thursday showed that 53 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush to do a better job of handling the situation in Iraq, while 37 percent trusted Kerry on Iraq — this despite the fact that U.S. casualties surpassed 1,000 during one of the days on which the poll was conducted.
Fifty-seven percent of the respondents said they trusted Bush to do a better job combating terrorism, compared to 35 percent who trusted Kerry to do a better job.
Kerry’s poll numbers underscore the importance of the debates between him and Bush. So far the Bush campaign has not agreed to the three dates announced by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
Both Bush’s and Kerry’s weaknesses will be on display. For Bush, the moment he’ll need to avoid is the one that he displayed in his April 13 press conference when he halted and seemed stymied by the question of what mistakes he had made since Sept. 11, 2001.
For Kerry, the problem is answering that very first question of the debate and doing it crisply, memorably in one minute, thirty seconds. Kerry’s rhetorical tendency is to ramble, adding qualifiers and subordinate clauses along the way.
Change in Democrats' views
Every presidential campaign has its ebbs and flows, and Democrats have gone through cycles of hope and despair over Kerry’s prospects. Two weeks from today, they may be feeling as ebullient as they felt at the Democratic convention in Boston.
In April, Democratic activists were agonizing over what they saw as Kerry’s failure to clearly tell voters why they should elect him. Then in late May, in the wake of Abu Ghraib prison abuse furor, Democrats pressed their attack on Bush and seemed confident Kerry would win.
But Kerry was unable to capitalize on the momentum generated by Abu Ghraib. Perhaps it was due to lack of focus on the issue of Bush’s competence to conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terrorists. Kerry’s own unforced errors — such as saying he would have voted for using force against Iraq even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction there — almost certainly have played a role in his sagging poll numbers.
Kerry’s Democratic allies view him as someone who is categorically superior to Bush in preparation, intellectual ability and knowledge of the world.
Richard Holbrooke, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said in May that Kerry “will be the most knowledgeable president coming into office in a long time.”
Kerry has “lived overseas, has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years, (and) knows the international community,” Holbrooke said.
Rep. Jane Harman, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, portrayed Kerry as more thoughtful and better read than Bush.
“You have to read books, you have to know world leaders, you have to think about these issues — not just delegate to others who do that,” she said in May.
In a comment Thursday, Teresa Heinz Kerry seemed to reflect Democratic frustration that Kerry’s ideas are not yet winning acceptance. Touting her husband’s health insurance proposal she said, “Only an idiot wouldn't like this. Of course, there are idiots."
Idiots or not, a good number of likely voters have not yet seen Kerry as his wife and his admirers portray him: an unquestionably superior president.
Only 36 percent of the respondents in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said they had a favorable impression of him, compared to 54 percent who viewed him favorably in March.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
|
Pretty ridiculous to have a democrat nominee losing ground in key democratic states..LOL..not to mention some polls have BUSH AHEAD OF KERRY IN OREGON!!!!!!
Bush has basically closed the deal in Missouri..the Kerry campaign has ceased with television ads in that state. Bush is pulling in Ohio. Bush is pulling in just about every swing state,however Bush is evenly tied with Kerry in Penn.....where Kerry needs to win and if he doesnt he is done.
Just shows that the democrats have no idea how to run a campaign, they weren't tough enough and when they were it backfired. Look for instance at the Bush memos...it should of been a golden point for his campaign...but what occurs today? Everyone is talking about the authencity of these documents to being forged. This backfired soo bad on his campaign it wasnt even funny. I really feel bad now for the guy. Clinton told him to stop talking about vietnam but first thing he does is go run ads on vietnam attacking BUSH....now these documents are being held suspicious by the majority of experts:
| quote: | | include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday. |
The coffin is closing folks
;)
Link1
LINk2
Link3
Link4 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I know it's fun to pat yourself on the back 1 week after your party's convention. Heck, I did it myself back in early August.
But the road is long, and as I've said over and over, nothing is really statistically significant by these polls until the final coupla weeks.
Here's an alternative perspective:
Three key points about the latest polling.
1. Polls that were taken after the GOP convention show either a Bush lead or a dead heat. Definitive assessments are not possible.
Here's how the race stands with registered voters ("likely voter" models are junk - http://www.emergingdemocraticmajori...ives/000635.php) in polls taken since Sept. 2.
Three polls are essentially a tie:
CNN-USA Today-Gallup
Bush 49
Kerry 48
Fox News
Bush 47
Kerry 45
The Economist (via Political Wire)
Bush 46
Kerry 45
(Note: Fox is only polling so-called "likely voters", not "registered voters")
Two polls (the ones you probably heard about) have Bush with relatively sizeable leads:
ABC-W. Post
Bush 50
Kerry 44
CBS
Bush 49
Kerry 42
Also, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows a tie (Bush 47.5 - Kerry 46.8) as of this writing.
(Keep in mind that tracking polls are meant to gauge movement, not provide accurate snapshots of support. The movement is slightly in Kerry's direction since the convention.)
Now overall, this is a shift to Bush from where the polls were in early August, when almost every poll had a Kerry lead.
But one can't accurately say Bush has a clear lead when most polls show a tie.
2. Kerry does better in the battleground.
The Gallup poll, which shows a 1 pt Bush lead nationally, has Kerry up 5 pts (50-45) in the battleground states, according to Donkey Rising.
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajori...ives/000642.php
W. Post says in "19 battleground states…the two candidates are running even," while Bush has a 6 pt lead nationally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0-2004Sep9.html
In both cases, Kerry performs better in the battleground than nationally.
Why might this be?
Perhaps the hard-right mega-negative convention played better in the Red states, widening Bush's lead in areas that won't matter on Election Day.
It also may mean that since Kerry's working local media markets hard in the battleground, he's getting fairer treatment there.
Similarly, it also may speak well to his ad campaign, which non-battleground voters don't see much of.
3. There's no getting around Kerry's negatives were raised by the GOP convention onslaught.
Even in the dead heat polls, Kerry lost ground in areas like leadership, personality, ability to fight terror, flip-flopping and favorability.
Of course, there's still conflicting data.
In the Gallup poll, Kerry's favorable-unfavorable rating is 53-43, down from 57-37 after the Dem convention.
Not good, but manageable (Bush is a similar 55-44).
The CBS poll, which appears not to have pushed undecideds to choose, has far worse data for Kerry: 32-41 (with Bush at 47-39).
Can a candidate win with unfavorables in the 40s?
Well, yes. Bill Clinton did in 1992.
Near the end of the race, his fav-unfav was similarly polarizing and conflicting: 51-45 (Gallup), 52-45 (LA Times) and 33-39 (CBS/NYT).
It's not that there was widespread love for Clinton, who was dogged with attacks on his "character" by Poppy Bush, and won with just 43%.
In fact, a late CNN/Time poll had vastly more people saying Poppy was more "honest and trustworthy" than Clinton.
But Poppy's fav-unfav was still worse than Clinton, with his unfavorables generally in the low 50s.
That's Kerry goal, to jack up Bush's negatives.
Like any Bush campaign, this race will be filled with muck, making it impossible to stay positive and generate warm feelings.
Kerry can't expect his unfavorable numbers to go back down to the 30s.
But with Bush probably at his high-water mark, just after his convention, Kerry should be able to get Bush's unfavorables higher than his.
This is not to say Kerry shouldn't try to talk himself up and articulate his compelling, alternative agenda.
It's always a balancing act: promoting yourself, tearing down the other guy.
And since Kerry can't single-handedly put this campaign on the high road, going after Bush is the bigger priority.
Source: liberaloasis.com (blog)
-AND-
| quote: | The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site.
A new Survey USA poll ending Sept. 8 in Ohio, shows the race tightening there. Bush's 9% lead is now down to 3% there. He is now leading 50% to 47%. Bush's lead is also dropping in North Carolina (now 4%) and Virginia (now only 3%). Maybe the South will rise again (for Kerry, this time). At the very least, if Bush has to fight for some of the southern states, that will divert time and money from the Midwest.
One piece of good news for Bush comes from an unlikely state: New Jersey. Kerry's lead in New Jersey is falling precipitously. It is down to 4% now, 43% to 39%, with Nader at 5%. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Nader will really get 5% there, or anywhere.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
D'oh!
Nice change of topic, Opus!
I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end!
Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign. Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face. If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better.
I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there.
Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
D'oh!
Nice change of topic, Opus!
I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end!
Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign. Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face. If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better.
I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there.
Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum. |
I say he is shooting himself in the foot with the memos scandal.
But more power to him..... |
|
|
| Shakka |
The way I see it, Kerry was never the democratic nominee of choice. In the end, they had to settle on him. First it was Howard "Yeeeeaaahhhhh" Dean, who took care of himself. Then it was Wesley Clark who was a joke to begin with. Then it was Geppy, Leiberman, Sharpton, and the rest of the goofballs that nobody could take seriously. And then there was Kerry, who shrewdly kept his mouth shut and was the ugly-guy on stage during the primaries. Eventually, he was all that was left that could be taken semi-seriously(I mean Dennis Kucinich? C'mon!). In the end, Kerry was what the Democrats had to settle with and now it's funny to watch people rally around him simply because they don't like Bush. People are cheering Kerry like he's the 2nd coming of Christ, but in reality I bet there aren't that many people who know 2 s about him. It's not like he's actually come out and said HOW he plans to accomplish anything. He's just made a bunch of pie-crust promises and gotten a bunch of loud mouths out there screaming his name. His initials are JFK! We must vote for him! He is the 2nd coming!!! Unless he can pull some serious repositioning, I think he might've peaked at the DNC. He's rapidly running out of legs to stand on.
Then again, the good stuff is just getting started. My popcorn is ready! This is what politics is all about. Fun ain't it! |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The way I see it, Kerry was never the democratic nominee of choice. In the end, they had to settle on him. First it was Howard "Yeeeeaaahhhhh" Dean, who took care of himself. Then it was Wesley Clark who was a joke to begin with. Then it was Geppy, Leiberman, Sharpton, and the rest of the goofballs that nobody could take seriously. And then there was Kerry, who shrewdly kept his mouth shut and was the ugly-guy on stage during the primaries. Eventually, he was all that was left that could be taken semi-seriously(I mean Dennis Kucinich? C'mon!). In the end, Kerry was what the Democrats had to settle with and now it's funny to watch people rally around him simply because they don't like Bush. People are cheering Kerry like he's the 2nd coming of Christ, but in reality I bet there aren't that many people who know 2 s about him. It's not like he's actually come out and said HOW he plans to accomplish anything. He's just made a bunch of pie-crust promises and gotten a bunch of loud mouths out there screaming his name. His initials are JFK! We must vote for him! He is the 2nd coming!!! Unless he can pull some serious repositioning, I think he might've peaked at the DNC. He's rapidly running out of legs to stand on.
Then again, the good stuff is just getting started. My popcorn is ready! This is what politics is all about. Fun ain't it! |
You picked my brain and spilled my thoughts on here!:D I completely agree. Not to mention he is a very liberal candidate...unlike the moderate liberals. Looks like a divided party to me, and divided democrats have never won elections throughtout history. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
I must make an Honorable mention Mec here.. Bush seems to be loosing ground in some of the Southeastern states.. such as Virginia, North Carolina.. and.. Ohia.. So I'll just pop your bubble here a bit.. as for New Jersey, yes it is true Kerry has lost ground there.. not the strong Blue.. but he still has the lead there non-theless..
but let me pop ur cherry first.
The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site.
| quote: | A new Survey USA poll ending Sept. 8 in Ohio, shows the race tightening there. Bush's 9% lead is now down to 3% there. He is now leading 50% to 47%. Bush's lead is also dropping in North Carolina (now 4%) and Virginia (now only 3%). Maybe the South will rise again (for Kerry, this time). At the very least, if Bush has to fight for some of the southern states, that will divert time and money from the Midwest.
One piece of good news for Bush comes from an unlikely state: New Jersey. Kerry's lead in New Jersey is falling precipitously. It is down to 4% now, 43% to 39%, with Nader at 5%. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Nader will really get 5% there, or anywhere. |
Source.. www.electoral-vote.com..
Also, is somewhat important to mention that Kerry has a whopping lead in New Mexico, compared to Al Gore and Bush in 2000, and Nevada is currently tied .. compared to the 4 point lead Bush had there when he WON that state.. Also Coloardo, which has shifted to weak Kerry, compared to the almost whopping 10 point lead Bush had there in 2000, and in PA, Bush has a 1 point lead, virtually tied.. So I dont know where all the Euphoria and coughings for Kerry comments come from.. I could go on with Many states that BUSH should have had assured.. non-theless.. this election looks very rigid still, and as for the RNC effects, they are quickly fading away.
AS for Oregon, the latest poll Zogby & Riley has Kerry with a 5 point lead there .. as for sept.3. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
Blank paper for the printer = 15 cents
Microsoft Word 2000 = $250
Computer and printer = $1000
Watching Dan Rather apololgize on national TV = Priceless
Oh, and CBS just keeps getting more and more owned on this..
| quote: | CBS has defended the authenticity of the Guard memos, which were supposedly produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.
But one of Killian's fellow officers, an independent document examiner and Killian's own son doubted the veracity of the memos.
Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.
"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."
The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.
"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."
Killian died in 1984.
In a telephone interview from her Texas home, Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records to The Washington Post as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and that he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."
"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS journalists, who she said did not ask her to authenticate the records. |
Some places are reporting leaks from within CBS say that they had doubts about the documents but ran the story anyway.
But then again, those are "leaked" documents too.
Which leak to believe? Either? Both? Neither?
I am also hearing now that Dan Rathers Daughter is a BIG DEM fund raiser in TX with that Ben guy and that Dan Rather actually went down to a fundraiser down there to be the key speaker.
I heard that on the radio today. I am sure there will be news stories about later on.
Rather is toast. He should just resign now
here are the files
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf
I commend ABC news on their efforts to refute CBS
I also think ABC is happy to lay a little "bitch slapping" on CBS and Dan Rather
 |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
I must make an Honorable mention Mec here.. Bush seems to be loosing ground in some of the Southeastern states.. such as Virginia, North Carolina.. and.. Ohia.. So I'll just pop your bubble here a bit.. as for New Jersey, yes it is true Kerry has lost ground there.. not the strong Blue.. but he still has the lead there non-theless..
but let me pop ur cherry first.
The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site.
Source.. www.electoral-vote.com..
Also, is somewhat important to mention that Kerry has a whopping lead in New Mexico, compared to Al Gore and Bush in 2000, and Nevada is currently tied .. compared to the 4 point lead Bush had there when he WON that state.. Also Coloardo, which has shifted to weak Kerry, compared to the almost whopping 10 point lead Bush had there in 2000, and in PA, Bush has a 1 point lead, virtually tied.. So I dont know where all the Euphoria and coughings for Kerry comments come from.. I could go on with Many states that BUSH should have had assured.. non-theless.. this election looks very rigid still, and as for the RNC effects, they are quickly fading away.
AS for Oregon, the latest poll Zogby & Riley has Kerry with a 5 point lead there .. as for sept.3. |
This upcoming week should be interesting. :) |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
bush only has a 4% lead in the great state of north carolina. i wanna be a battleground state, too.:D
i've been watching this site for a while, and bush seems to have lost his convention steam rather quickly. maybe he needs a quick boost from something else.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/
damn speedracer, i wish you would study bush with the same ferver you study his opposition. beware, it's a mind-. take your time, and one day you'll be ready.;) |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
|
Fantastic! |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
bush only has a 4% lead in the great state of north carolina. i wanna be a battleground state, too.:D
i've been watching this site for a while, and bush seems to have lost his convention steam rather quickly. maybe he needs a quick boost from something else.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/
damn speedracer, i wish you would study bush with the same ferver you study his opposition. beware, it's a mind-. take your time, and one day you'll be ready.;) |
LoL.. "House Of Bush, House of Saud" .. he might as well get that book too, study it, and then.. bring back the comments, Id LOOOOVEEE to listen to the comments and refutal evidences.. :toothless |
|
|
|
|
