BUSH LEADS CHALLENGERS IN POLL - how f#%king out of touch is America?

[CaptainMidnight]

BUSH LEADS CHALLENGERS IN NEW ELECTION POLL
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/17/bush_leads/index.html

"Yeah, we Americans, we LOVE a ruined economy, endless war, bankrupted social security, a looted Treasury, no money for social programs, all 50 states being insolvenet, MORE tax cuts for the rich, a polluted environment, less trees, more filth to breathe, more foreign invasions, a pending National Draft, staged fake terrorist attacks on Americans, yeah, gimme some more of that! "

"Oh, and Saddam Hussein did 9-11!"

SEE? Whoever controls the media, controls the world! Manufacture consent!

(see Bush Resume: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html )


Sept. 17, 2003  |  HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) -- President Bush leads all Democratic challengers -- and even some who have not entered the 2004 presidential race -- in a national poll released Wednesday.

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that Bush outdistanced his rivals by at least 10 points or more in the survey conducted Sept. 11-15.

Bush was favored 52-41 percent over Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, 51-39 percent over Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and 53-38 percent over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The president also easily bested two Democrats not in the race -- former Vice President Al Gore, Bush's opponent in 2000, and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bush was favored 53-41 percent over Gore, and 52-42 percent over the former first lady.

(SNIP)

Ladies, have we got some WORK TO DO!

Captain Mike

[Brucey]

1. Goddamn, it's disappointing.

There is no underestimating the sheep like qualities and low intellect of the American public.

[glarius]

2. Perhaps Clark will make the difference!

He wasn't included in this!

[PA-DEM]

3. Oh Please

Bush had a 17 point lead in January of 2000 and Gore got half a million more votes. Stop already. Bush has the name recognition right now, that is it, nothing else.

[Q]

4. A country that is told to 'move on' after a stolen election...

...won't mind a few rigged polls.

- Welcome to George Orwell's Twilight Zone. Democrats just don't seem to get it. GWB* could take a dump on the flag and dance on the graves of soldiers and the RWing faithful will still vote for him. Why? Because they WON'T vote for a Democrat for any reason.

[PA-DEM]

5. thats fine

We dont need them we just need our base. There are more of us than them if we get out and vote.

[rock]

6. I think you're looking at it all wrong

- 2/3 of the people can't name a democratic candidate
- yet, nearly every dem candidate is within stiking distance of taking bush*sucks

Conclusion: unknown dem candidates do well against a sitting pResident

By the time of the exection, every voter will know who the dem candidate is. Chimpy is toast.

[Gman]

7. This is contrary to all the data around today

including this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/opinion/polls/main573774.shtml

I think they're in panic mode and got this university to do this "poll"...

There's no link to the poll questions and results. I wonder if they asked questions like, "Would you vote for a lying no good scumdog Democrat like Dean or a champion of freedom that is restoring America to greatness after the country was trashed like Bush?"

[pansypoo53219]

8. far to early

to worry. and they never POLL ME.

[Starpass]

9. This is only one of several that have hit over the days

..and the results are the same. It's to be expected and I did a post on it the other day. In a generic matchup it looks all even or that we are winning. But it's poly sci 101 that when we put a name to it, the numbers drop. The people are registering dislike with Bush and not a "like" for a certain candidate. Many will look at a specified candidate and say "who the hell is he--is that all they got". This is exactly what will happen once we have a nominee. It always does and it isn't the end of the world. That's when the campaign begins and we sell the unknown to them. In fact, if it's ONLY a 10 point spread with some of these at this time so far out, that is very very good and beats the usual drop when a candidate is named. Poly Sci students know there is a lot of positive here. And, indeed, Clark wasn't in this---I don't expect that he will automatically register higher than Bush; but there is a chance that because a "general" is 'different fare' than the usual, that he will do a bit better than the rest. Just hang in there...........

[ButterflyBlood]

10. when 2/3 of Democrats can't even name one of the candidates

there's your explanation. It's name recognition, nothing else. The generic reelect numbers show him neck and neck or sometimes losing.

I just wish they would shut up about Gore and Hillary in these polls, everyone except a few of the most die-hard Draft Gore folks has accepted that Gore is out, and only Freeper wingnuts think there's a chance of Hillary running.

[CMT]

11. relax, Gore was 15-points behind Bush in October, 1999

and through much of 2000 until the Dem convention. The dem candidates are doing pretty well considering much of the country hasn't focused on the race.

[leesa]

12. Try to keep perspective. They control the media and most polling

companies. If you look into background, it would probably turn out that this polling company is RW controlled. Look around you, people are not happy with him. Every time he is in trouble they float these polls to keep the sheeple in line and believing that bush isn't the antichrist.