Kerry Would Defeat Bush in New U.S. Election (Angus-Reid)

[Lexingtonian]

Kerry Would Defeat Bush in New U.S. Election

April 22, 2006

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – The outcome of the 2004 United States presidential election would be different if a new ballot took place this year, according to a poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. 47 per cent of respondents would vote for Democrat John Kerry, while 40 per cent would support Republican George W. Bush.

<....>

Regardless of how you may have voted in the presidential election in November 2004, knowing what you know today, would you vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry if the presidential election was being held today?

John Kerry (D) 47%
George W. Bush (R) 40%
Someone else 6%
Would not vote 4%
Don’t know 3%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11630

Let me just point out that the "Someone else" and "Would not vote" blocs necessarily come out of Bush's electorate.

[maddezmom]

1. I find this encouraging and maddening at the same time

:dilemma:

[barb162]

53. same here!

[LaurenG]

2. I think he beat him in the last one

but that's an old topic that can't be corrected at this late point.:shrug:

[Ecumenist]

6. Yes, indeed Ohioblues

He did beat him...:applause:

[0007]

10. Kerry did win the last election.

[BlueIris]

51. Maybe it can't be "corrected," but people can still get informed.

We must win the battle for history, even if, for some of us, it means tiredly having to point out so many times--massive fraud. Every state. Not anyone's imagination. Not something you have to "believe" in, like a hunch or a fairytale. The invalidity of the last election has been proven. By Congress. And others. Experts. Academics. And citizens like you and me. That's not unimportant. It's not "an old topic," anymore than the Kennedy assassination conspiracy or the Watergate scandal is.

[NicRic]

57. My first thought when I read post N/T

.

[zann725]

63. Agreed! And by probably about the same percentage (minus "ballot errors")

JK won 'hands down.' He's our REAL Prez, we ALL know it. WHen we gonna let him 'take the reins? When it's too late...in '08?

He and Gore BOTH won...let someone save our country and democracy NOW....please?!

[alarcojon]

3. Interesting...

[fujiyama]

4. A nation of idiots

Buyers remorse stupid fucktards?

[Seabiscuit]

38. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

40% for Bush? Who are these cretins?

[Ecumenist]

5. this should come as no surprise because...

He won in 2004...

[dad]

7. polls

I think people are forgetting that pre-election and even exit polling in 2004 showed JFK winning the election. It's not who win the polls, it's who counts the votes when it's for real that matters.

[Ecumenist]

9. Yes, indeed....

I know that. This upcoming election is probably the most important one in our nation's history. I believe that they'll not be able to get away with playing with the votes this time. There us such a huge simmering anger at this bunch that there will have to be a huge and naked switching of votes.

[AndyTiedye]

35. You Mean Even More Huge Than Last Time? They Steal More Votes Every Year

I believe that they'll not be able to get away with playing with the votes this time. There us such a huge simmering anger at this bunch that there will have to be a huge and naked switching of votes.

There WAS a huge and naked switching of votes in 2004.

Some voters saw their Kerry votes switch to Bush**ler votes by the voting machinez right before their eyes.
It doesn't get any more naked than that, (though throwing out all the poll-watchers due to a fake "terror
alert" and then delivering 72% of the vote to Bush**ler does come close).

In the Ohio 2005 referenda, they demonstrated that they can flip over 30% of the vote and get away with it.
They turned a landslide FOR the referenda into a landslide AGAINST it. They can keep Ohio red forever.

Voter Action (http://www.voteraction.org) is now in a desperate court battle to prevent California from being blackwelled. The recently-installed Secretary of State McPherson has let in

Republican Electing Machinez
in defiance of state law and the loudly-expressed will of the people of California.

[bluestateguy]

8. Not all of the Bush disapprovers would vote Democratic

A chunk of them are conservatives mad at Bush over runaway spending, immigration and Harriet Miers. These people would either quietly vote Republican or stay home in November, but not vote Democratic.

I'm not surprised to see that Kerry would win, but it's not by the double digit landslide that some might assume.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. 40% would still vote for Bush

The Republicans so demonized Kerry that even though Bush is widely seen as a disaster, that Kerry could not even get a two digit margin over Bush.

Those 40% who would still vote for bush will never vote for a Democrat.

[arewenotdemo]

34. I dunno

but I tend to think the margin would be greater than 7 points if the choice was Bush or Clark.

I just don't believe the Pukes could do the slime job on Clark that they did on Kerry.

[Punkingal]

12. Just like he beat him in 2004...

No surprise there.

[Minstrel Boy]

13. Even the fucking exit polls in 2004 showed Kerry winning

Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

14. *Sigh*

If we only had a smoking gun ...

I wonder if that hacker was aware that he was being terminated, or if he thought he had been struck by a random bullet, or if the damage to his brain was so immediately complete that he lost consciousness before he was aware he had been struck.

--p!

[NYC Liberal]

15. I remember that, and the only thing I doubt is that

Bush took the news "stoically."

Yeah, I'm sure he did :eyes:

[davsand]

21. It is a lot easier to be stoic when you've got it fixed.

This is kinda like his response to the news of the plane hitting the WTC. He was pretty low key on that one too, as I recall.

He was so low key on it all he actually was able to JOKE about it later when he made that crappy comment about his first thought being "what a lousy pilot."

I think there are a couple of factors at work in his "stoicism" at times like 9/11 and on election day when he's told his opponent is winning:

1. He's too stupid to actually understand what they are telling him at the time. This one is really easy to visualize. His res pone would be simply, "Huh?"

2. He's too stoned/tranquilized to actually respond in any meaningful way. Think of the old Cheech and Chong routines and you pretty much have this one visualized. "Open the door man, it's me Dave--I got the stuff." "Dave's not here, man."

3. He knew it was coming and he's been told already how it all ends.

Frankly, I think #3 probably is the one that is most likely at work here. It is real tough to get too worked up when life for you is like watching a re-run of an Abbot and Costello movie...



Laura

[DELUSIONAL]

16. it all depends on who (or what) counts the vote

Those of us who followed Truth IS ALL work -- Kerry was leading in the polls and Diebolt & other crooks counted the votes.

[Bushy Being Born]

17. This is irrelevant. Forget Bush already.

It would be more interesting to see how Kerry polls against McCain in this situation for example. Have those numbers been researched by somebody lately?

[Demit]

24. Forget Bush? That's kind of hard to do.

Glad you're able to look past the remaining 2 1/2 years of his presidency. And the possible nuclear bombing of a country we're not at war with. Glad you find polls and numbers research more interesting. What a blissful world that must be to live in.

[Bushy Being Born]

36. And I'm glad you find ways to amuse yourself by putting words in my mouth

In case you didn't notice, this is a thread on polls. As such, my topic pertains to said subject, and whether it is more or less interesting that any other here on DU is beside the point. But if polls are not your thing, then why are you posting on this thread?

It's totally irrelevant how Bush polls against any 2008 nominee. I want to see how Kerry fares against viable GOP contenders for that race, and as you probably know, that doesn't include Bush.

Anybody have any numbers? And while we're at it, how does other Democratic hopefuls poll in the same situation? Something tells me there may be others with better numbers than Kerry.

[Stevepol]

49. Look. Forget the polls. The voting machines determine everything.

Kerry won the 04 election by a minimum of 5M votes, about 3 1/2% I believe, according to the Edison Mitofsky poll. Mitofsky himself admits that the discrepancy between the machine result and the exit polls could not have remotely happened by chance. No way.

Either the exit polls were wrong or the votes were counted fraudulently. Which do you think is true?

Check out: www.uscountvotes.org and look for Steven Freeman's book coming out soon that details the stats that pretty well make the case for the fraudulent election.

Also, read Mark Crispin Miller's book FOOLED AGAIN. If you read that and still think Bush won the election, you need to have your head examined.

[Hugin]

18. Not if Diebold had anything to say about it...

They'd just promise to deliver the vote and everyone would roll
over again.

Those poll numbers are about what I thought the real turnout percentages
were in '04.

Vindication is sweet, but, I'd prefer if things didn't turn out the
way they did.

[indypaul]

19. Bush was defeated in 2000 and 2004 but

didn't someone oncesay, "Of all the words from
lips or pen. The saddest of those are what
might have been." The point is what the hell
are we going to do about it in 2006 and 2008.
If we don't take back Congress in 2006 we might
as well forget 2008. The master of Bush's
and the Republicans strategy has just been put
to work on strategy for this falls elections.
If Karl Rove is going to serve in that capacity
it will be God, Guns and Gays again and how do
we Democrats counteract what we know is coming.
We'd best get busy and it ain't gonna happen if
all we worry about is who will be our presidential candidate in 2008. Find out who your congressional candidates (House and Senate) are, and get busy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Herr Bush hasn't won an election yet.

[MiniMe]

22. My bet is "unnamed democrat" would beat * at this point. n/t

[WhiteTara]

23. he won last time too

[dusty64]

25. So I am to

believe that Kerry actually loses 2% support from 04. Don't buy it and I truly think he DID win last time.

[Dr Ron]

26. He's showing why he should be President right now

Democratic Daily has the prepared text of his speech on opposing war:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2723

[lutefisk]

27. I think Bush might "win" again in '08, if he could run

Please note the " " around win.

I really think they would pull it off and continue the Chimperor's reign of error and terror in '08 if they had the chance. Some of the reasons I believe this:

-the voting machine issues
-the Swift boating of any challenger
-the corporate media that will do what they are told
-the proven willingness of the Bush Regime to lie, cheat, even start a war, to further their own interests

[kineneb]

28. My Pet Rock would beat Bush!

...first thought upon seeing headline...

[Clarkie1]

29. So would Clark, Edwards, Dean, or even Lieberman I'd wager. n/t

[nashville_brook]

30. kermit the frog would beat bush at this point

[tom_paine]

31. Oh, but that's a poll of REAL human beings, not "voting" machines

In such a vote, Bush would "win" 50.2% to 49.8%.

Dear God, help Imperial Amerika to regain it's freedom and the 'c' in it's name.

[Notoverit]

32. Pssst! Kerry already defeated W in 2004! Pass it on!

of course it would have been nice if he fought for it, but....

[smoogatz]

33. What this proves is that 50% of those polled dislike Kerry so much

they'd vote for pretty much anybody else (or nobody) before they'd vote for him, including the Idiot Son. This should be a pretty clear sign that Kerry's a bad choice for '08.

On edit--a big hola to alarcojon. 'sup, bro?

[sandnsea]

40. Anti-Democrat smear machine is very effective

That's what it says. That's the core problem and has been for 20 years. It would hit any Democrat in the same way, most a whole lot worse than this. Kerry has 49%, he's got a very short way to go to get what he needs to win. This is actually the reason he SHOULD be the candidate, those who've already heard the lies will recognize the tactic next time around. With a new candidate, we'd have to fight off a whole new line of lies, plus push their character and policies. With a known commidity, that entire job would be much much easier.

[Pithy Cherub]

42. Using that logic, a much better case can be made for Al Gore. n/t

[sandnsea]

43. Either way

I'd rather run Gore or Kerry than have to start from scratch again.

[Notoverit]

59. You got it. At least he didn't let his voters believe they lost!

[smoogatz]

46. He's got 47%, against BUSH--whose approval rating in the most recent

FOX poll is a positivley hostile 33%. That's a genuinely dismal showing, IMO--and don't forget, he ain't going to be running against Bush in '08; he'll be running (most likely) against McCain. I don't think Kerry's only problem is the Republican smear machine, although that's certainly a factor. Kerry's most intractable problem is Kerry.

[sandnsea]

50. Dean is "cool and arrogant"

If you don't think the Republican smear machine can take down anybody, you ain't been paying attention. The poll was 40% for Bush, that's the hard core Repub and no Democrat is going to get into that group. 6% other, gee, I wonder what "others" that would be. And 3% undecided. Those 9% could just as easily be sour grapes Democrats as anybody else, meaning if they were being honest, they would have said Kerry too. At least enough to hit 50%.

He made a great step today towards running against McCain. When he keeps pushing the correlations between his 1971 testimony and today, he'll erode McCain's boomer and Reagan-baby support and leave him standing there looking like the war-mongering fool that he is.

[MissWaverly]

37. He can't beat him if the machine still defaults to Bush

My machine defaulted to GWB 5 x in Baltimore, in Nov. 2004 general election.

[Rex]

39. Kerry and Gore did defeat Bush

to bad BBV owns the electoral process.

[genieroze]

41. Kerry beat * in the last sElection. Diebold and fraud made sure of it.

[notadmblnd]

44. News Flash!

Kerry beat him the first time.

[ast_liberal2008]

45. Sounds better now, doesn't it?

Kerry/ Edwards 2004: Sounds better now, doesn't it?


That's what I wrote on one of my Kerry/Edwards t-shirts. People frequently tell me they agree.

[Ignacio Upton]

47. How about a Gore-Bush matchup?

I would like to see how the people would vote nearly five and a half years after Election 2000.

[SKKY]

48. 40% still believe Bush is better? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!!!

[fshrink]

52. Because

there are relatively few voters in the US, because among these voters there is about a third of extreme-right individuals who will not change, because there is a large number of "undecided", mostly I would think religious individuals, because the cultural and intellectual level of most had gone drastically down over the years, because the media now belongs in quasi-totality to reactionary forces any election to come will be close enough to be manipulated.
So Kerry would not win now either. In fact, no liberal will win before several progressive politicians accept to lose while exposing the above over and over. The best we can hope is to have the Idiot and his family removed and some half-ass to take his place. Which would be enough to end the humiliation. But not enough to move forward.

[SoCalDem]

54. Well..whoop-dee-dooo

To bad that's NEVER gonna happen.. Anyway, the fact that they only show 47-40 percent doesn;t inspire confidence in me..

WHOEVER is the next president just HAS to be able to be more than a 49 percenter.

Ho-hum is not going to shepherd us through the tough things we have to tackle during the next 15 years, and 3 of those years are "assigned" to *².. That only leaves a small window of opportunity to get some really difficult things done in a hurry. There's considerably MORE damage ahead for us in the "home stretch" of the current occupant of the WH, so who knows just how bad it will be.

We need to come to grips with just what kind of country we are, what we need to be and what we CAN be.

Whoever takes the helm MUST be strong enough to make even his/her opponents' understand and accept what has to happen..

We MUST:

take on environmental damage and our part in the problem

take on a truly universal health care system

correct the misdeeds of the *² adminsitration abroad and rebuild the alliances we used to have

take on a REAL energy policy that might even need nationalization of energy (privateer-ization has not worked out all that well)

rebuild a demoralized workforce WITH UNIONS so the middle class can rebound

repay an unnecessary, yet MASSIVE debt...tax cuts must be rescinded, inheritance tax must be restored, and handouts to corporations MUST cease.

restore the social security system

deal with the cancer that is lobbying

make REAL corrections to the broken election system we have

For any president to be able to even start to take on these issues, he/she MUST be "more than a 47%-er"..

[Hugin]

55. Well said...

Very well said.

[mvd]

65. Good post, SoCal

Though it's possible that he might be a 50%er if enough of those "someone else" votes go his way.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. Better Late Than Never

Of course it didn't help that the "liberal media" was apparently sitting on a lot of highly volatile and potentially explosive stories (that didn't end up coming out until AFTER Bushco was "voted" back into office) that could've seriously harmed Bush and thrown the election to Kerry. Thank god that the "liberal media" didn't want to "politicize" the news and possibly impact the race in a negative way for Bush even though Bush's policies have impacted and continue to impact us all in an extremely negative way.:grr: With a compliant media, possible electoral fraud in Ohio (no conflict of interests there, eh Mr. Ohio Secretary of State AND Ohio Bush Campaign Chairman Blackwell? ;-)), the climate of "terror" fostered by Bushco's promiscuous use of terror alerts, and a special unexpected "appearance" by Bin Laden dropped onto the "liberal media" RIGHT BEFORE the election, Bush, unfortunately won the election but NEVER owned any kind of "mandate" as a result of his win and Kerry came damn near close to beating him (assuming the results in Ohio were accurate which is still very much in doubt to this day). "I hope you're happy! I hope your happy now!!!" ("Wicked")

[hippiechick]

58. Considering the 99.95% probability he defeated him the first time...

:shrug:

[glitch]

60. He did beat Bush. He didn't beat Diebold tabulators, ES&S, et al.

Apparently only We The People have a chance of beating them.

[President Kerry]

61. my... head... hurts!~

WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU 1.5 YEARS AGO?????? I'm so incredibly mad right now.

[President Kerry]

62. Kerry won in '04, but it shouldn't even have been close, damn it!

How anyone in their right mind would still give their vote to the inept fool in the White House is mind-boggling. He's fucked up every single thing he touched in his 6 yr reign of error.

[NoodleyAppendage]

64. 7% difference does NOT give one confidence in Kerry.

That's pretty close to the margin of error and given King Chimp's approval ratings, what this suggests is VERY LUKEWARM support for Kerry.

People let's just put this out on the table...aside from the liberal diehards, "PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE KERRY," for various reasons and he has the charisma of a stuffed cat. He'll get his clock cleaned in 2008 if he runs again.

J