latest poll- bush beats dem by only 8%

[buckfush2]

down 5% since April

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

[Emboldened Chimp]

1. Weird...

the 'definitely vote Bush*" went up 4%.

However the combined "consider someone else" and "vote for someone else" is a total of 53%. That does not bode well for the Little Fuhrer.

[samsingh]

6. that's still within the margin of error.

.

[Ohio Dem]

2. Not bad, considering we don't even have a candidate yet.

When we do have a candidate, the gap will become more narrow, if not turn in our favor.

[Snellius]

3. Only 8%?

That's still 8% too much. But it means all the rest just want to get rid of him no matter what.

[cherryperry]

4. "We're movin' on up"... I say

this is cause for a :beer: !

:kick:

[VermontDem2004]

5. Fast forward

Washington Post and ABC News polls. Oct 27-31, 2004. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.

"If the 2004 November presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, or for the Democratic nominee for president?" Options were rotated

10/04 Bush 75%
Democrats 20%
No Opinion 5%

5/04 Bush 35%
Democrats 60%
No Opinion 5%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux News
September 12, 2004

President Bush and his cabinet was able to prevent a major attack on this nation on the three aniversal of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. 15-20 Muslim fundamentalists were planning several suicide bombings in Nuclear Power Plant facilities, the President was able to gather the information to prevent these attacks by what he calls "insticts". He later said in a speech that he had a feeling "that terrorists may use nuclear power plant facilities as a weapon of mass destruction". That day he sent over a thousand fbi agents to the largest nuclear power plant facilities in the US.

More

--------------
Who knows? :shrug: something is bound to happen to help him political. 9/11 was the best thing that ever happen to Bush politically wise.

[cherryperry]

7. Stop that pessimism RIGHT NOW!

The Democrats will win in 2004. You are hereby ordered to chant that 50 times per day!

:kick: :hi:

[Aleesha]

17. Let the Debate begin I Say!!!

I can't wait to see Dean rip the shrub to pieces!!!!!
Howard Dean hasn't even really begun, just wait!
I will bet $1,000 to the Dean campaign that shrub will not debate him!!

[OzzieNelson]

8. Nothing to it

This is the proverbial "unnamed candidate" poll. Almost totally useless. The "unnamed candidate" generally has no faults and is everything the voter would ever want.

[dolstein]

9. He beats a "generic" Dem by 8%

Unfortunately, the Dems have to nominate a living, breathing candidate.

[Guaranteed]

10. Keep in mind what happened last year....

We're dealing with the electoral college, not popular vote....

[PurityOfEssence]

11. considering what a "personality cult" referendum elections have become

that's pretty pathetic.

The simplistic, lowest common denominator is always at play in this facile media-saturated society. If there's any mystery about that, then why would Schwarzenneger have such instant appeal?

If the cowpoke commoner king is only that far ahead of "other", that's a good sign.

[Gloria]

12. Two thoughts from Malloy and Richards...

On Larry King a couple of nights ago, Ann Richards told LK that the Dems will win...all they have to do is GET OUT THEIR VOTE and develop a SIMPLE MESSAGE. So, while Buffet is hanging with Arnie, Soros is putting money into getting out the vote....VERY IMPORTANT!

Last night, Mike Malloy had an interesting comment: The Dems should stop these "cattle call" "debates" (those things which CNN comments on snidely--"it's lonely for the Democratic candidates" as they play a clip of them milling around on the stage while Arnie gets positive coverage).
Mike says they should stop them and just go out and each one focus on bashing Bush and forget about bashing the other guys.....

Food for thought....

[dolstein]

13. Yeah, but Bush beats Dean 55-27

In case you didn't notice. Of course, Bush leads the other candidates too. But Bush's level of support is highest against Dean.

[wabeewoman]

14. I don't think that is bad for Dean

He has much less name recognition and is only 6 points behind Lieberman who ran for VP.

[dolstein]

15. You seem to be missing something here

It's not simply a matter of Dean's lower support in polls -- it's that Bush's support goes UP when he's pitted against Dean than when he's pitted against Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry. This shows that Dean is actually motivating people who would otherwise remain on the fence to vote for Bush. That isn't a good sign. It also means that even if EVERY undecided voter went for Dean, Dean would still need to convince more than one out of every ten Bush supporters to switch their support to him. That's a pretty monumental task.

[Raenelle]

16. 48%--isn't that what he got in 2000?

That means he's back to his baseline. The bumps from 9/11 and the "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq have all been squandered.

[dolstein]

18. That 48% will stick with Bush come hell or high water

It doesn't matter if the economy collapses and thousands of soldiers start getting shipped home in bodybags. Bush has a hard core of support among Republicans and conservatives that will stick with him no matter what. Anyone who thinks the 2004 election will be anything other than an uphill battle is deluding themselves.