Kerry Gaining, Bush Slipping

[valniel]

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

Kerry leading declared candidates nationwide! Hillary very strong.

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Sept. 3-4, 2003. N=883 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.

“If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?”

Definitely for: 29%
Might vote for or against: 25%
Definitely against: 41%
Not sure: 5%

"Suppose the 2004 election for president were being held today and you had to choose between , the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican. For whom would you vote: ?"

George W. Bush: 50%
John Kerry: 45%
Not Sure: 5%

George W. Bush: 50%
Joseph Lieberman: 44%
Not Sure: 6%

George W. Bush: 52%
Howard Dean: 42%
Not Sure: 6%

George W. Bush: 53%
Dick Gephardt: 42%
Not Sure: 5%

“Now suppose Hillary Rodham Clinton were to run for the Democratic nomination for president. Suppose the 2004 election for president were being held today, and you had to choose between Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican. For whom would you vote, Clinton or Bush?”

George W. Bush: 50%
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 47%
Not Sure: 3%

[Brucey]

1. Hmmm

One thing that always happens with polls: If you ask people if they want person X or someone else, they say someone else. If you fill in a name, any name, such as, "Do you want person X or person Y, they will take person X. This is because they are more familiar with an incumbent, no matter how much they like them or dislike them. And, when you don't have a name (only 29% will definitely vote for airhead) the opposition includes everyone else. When you name someone, you get all those who don't like that name going to the incumbent. In other words, we must not be fooled by the low support for airhead, because the Dem candidates will have lots of negatives brought out by the Republican campaign. We must work hard and work the media properly if we're going to win this one. Go anyone but airhead!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. As mentioned in another thread....

National polls have little meaning at this point. Look to the states that the candidates are actively campaigning to see how their message is selling. These are the areas where the voters are paying attention. And here they are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=33741#34072

[Nicholas_J]

4. Again

The national polls in general are EXACTLY as valaid as the local polls. In general, they are done by the same people using the same techinques.

It is after Labor day, that polls start becoming exceedingly accurate, and Dean supporters have posted polls here recenntly that indicate that more people recorgnize Deans name than ANY of the other candidates.

AS a matter of fact. FOr the last few election cycles,tthe canndidate who won in both New Hampshire and in Iowa was NOT the nominess of the party.

I have said it in the past and will say it again. Because Dean was the only candidate actively running and the other candidate were not advertising, on tv and elsewhere, and not speaking much ( Dena viusited Iowa in the last two years 50 times more thn any other candidate, he was even starting to test campaign waters there while he was STILL governor.)

Because Dean has decised to draw attention to hinself early on, the media KNOWS what Dean says about himself. They will now look at his record, how his campaigning has changed, and be looking for any negatives about Dean as his record is least known.

Most of Deans supporters are as they state, people new to the political process, who have been fired up by Dean. WHich means either they havnt lived through many campaigns, or have not payed much attention to pre-campaign events, media coverage, and so on.

You guys have a vested interest in turning Deans dog-shit into diamonds, but to be honest, the supporter of other candidates, the other candidates themselves and the media has no vested interest in doing so.

Deanrequently used this tactic against other candidates.
Calling the October Resolution "A vote for War" when in fact there is NO LEGAL SUBSTANCE to this beleif, is something Dean turned into the truth by repeating it over and over and over again in the media until Dean made it true in the public opinion of a the anti-war movement.

People on DU are still writing that screed, insisting that their beleif makes it so. It is a law and only the legal system can determine if it was or was not a vote for war, and peoplewho did not sign the act utilized it in courts as a means to try to get an injuntion to STOP Bush from going to war, and the courts did not decide at all whetther it was a vote for war, as Bush was still engaged with the U.N. and so had not gone to war WITHOUT the U.N. as stipulated in the resolution.

Now, when Deans own political tactics are being turned against him, his supporters cry "Foul" Sorry. If the media is bringing it up, there is some substance to what is being said. They have a tenency not to totally lie, as they hate being sued for libel.

[DJcairo]

6. Indeed...but you have to be concerned if you're a Kerry supporter

because if Dean winds both Iowa and NH it's most likely over for Kerry. With such a compressed primary season this year that is the reality.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Kerry won't lose NH

I can almost guarantee it. Over 4 months away. It's a political eternity.

[Nicholas_J]

10. More recent polls

Have him pulling up on Dean rather rapidly

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Remember McCain's pulling the rug on Bush?

and Clinton (the comeback kid?)
Save your energies for primary day. (Deanies that is.)

[Nicholas_J]

12. Really?

Then it was all over for Clinton when he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire...A shame really, as Clinton would have made a kickass president.

AS opposed to that conservative suck up Dean.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Speaking of "Dogshit-into-Diamonds."

Let's turn your "dogshit" into "diamonds" of truth.

The national polls in general are EXACTLY as valaid as the local polls. In general, they are done by the same people using the same techinques.

If you had bothered to read my post you would have understood that there is a reason why National polls are NOT as valid as local polls where the candidates are actively campaigning. A recent poll said that a full 63% of Dems can't even name one Dem candidate. That is a national poll. Go to New Hampshire or Iowa and I would bet that that number is at/below 20% among Dems. Dogshit=Diamonds.

It is after Labor day, that polls start becoming exceedingly accurate, and Dean supporters have posted polls here recenntly that indicate that more people recorgnize Deans name than ANY of the other candidates.

And why do they become more accurate? Because people start paying attention. They're already paying attention in NH,IA and to a lesser extent SC because the candidates are on the ground there now and have been for months. The National polls show that more people recognize Liebermans name, rightfully so, so I have no idea what you're talking about(if someone else was trying to make this point don't attach it to me, take it up with them). Dogshit=Diamonds.

AS a matter of fact. FOr the last few election cycles,tthe canndidate who won in both New Hampshire and in Iowa was NOT the nominess of the party.

How have Senators done in the last few election cycles? Dogshit=Diamonds.

I have said it in the past and will say it again. Because Dean was the only candidate actively running and the other candidate were not advertising, on tv and elsewhere, and not speaking much ( Dena viusited Iowa in the last two years 50 times more thn any other candidate, he was even starting to test campaign waters there while he was STILL governor.)
Because Dean has decised to draw attention to hinself early on, the media KNOWS what Dean says about himself. They will now look at his record, how his campaigning has changed, and be looking for any negatives about Dean as his record is least known.

One of your few observations that isn't dogshit.

Most of Deans supporters are as they state, people new to the political process, who have been fired up by Dean. WHich means either they havnt lived through many campaigns, or have not payed much attention to pre-campaign events, media coverage, and so on.

Uh, no. Dean has brought many new people into the process but the majority of his supporters have been involved in politics, or followed politics, before. Dogshit=Diamonds.

You guys have a vested interest in turning Deans dog-shit into diamonds, but to be honest, the supporter of other candidates, the other candidates themselves and the media has no vested interest in doing so.

Besides the ad-hominem attack (typical), you are right. What's your point?

Deanrequently used this tactic against other candidates.
Calling the October Resolution "A vote for War" when in fact there is NO LEGAL SUBSTANCE to this beleif, is something Dean turned into the truth by repeating it over and over and over again in the media until Dean made it true in the public opinion of a the anti-war movement.

Pure, steaming dogshit. From the IWR:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-02-iraq-resolution-text_x.htm

Yes, Nic, that is authorization to Chimp(BFEE) from Kerry, et. al.(supposedly the one who knows BFEE motives the best). If you think the IWR was about patty-cake, I can't help you. Dogshit=Diamonds.

People on DU are still writing that screed, insisting that their beleif makes it so. It is a law and only the legal system can determine if it was or was not a vote for war, and peoplewho did not sign the act utilized it in courts as a means to try to get an injuntion to STOP Bush from going to war, and the courts did not decide at all whetther it was a vote for war, as Bush was still engaged with the U.N. and so had not gone to war WITHOUT the U.N. as stipulated in the resolution.
Now, when Deans own political tactics are being turned against him, his supporters cry "Foul" Sorry. If the media is bringing it up, there is some substance to what is being said. They have a tenency not to totally lie, as they hate being sued for libel.

Point out where the boldface part of your statement appears in the IWR? Here's the link again: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-02-iraq-resolution-text_x.htm You won't be able to. The only person writing "screed" here is you.


Dogshit into Diamonds of truth.



edit: punc, clarity

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Diamond Dogs was an excellent album by the way....

but that's for the lounge...

You people who fail to recognize the IWR as anything other than political hay don't seem to understand the powers the president always has at his discretion to call the military to action. As an example, there is a specific requirement in IWR for Bush to inform and explain why to the congress within 48 hours of taking action. Yeah...(duh).. this is SOP for the war powers act.

"Rebel Rebel" is a really good song too.

[Nicholas_J]

11. More misrepresentation

You selected the section that authorizes the support for DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS, authorizingb the U.S. to go to the U.N. and use force in the Support of those Diplmatic efforts. This is not an authorization for the U.S. to go to war. but for the U.S. to go to war it the U.N. Determined it necessary to do so IF the U.N. decided to do so. As indicated by the title of the section you used to the to misrepesent the act. THe title of the section you pulled being



"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS."




The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.




This the section in which aithorized force and establishes the conditions in which force is authorized as indicatred by its title.



"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES."



(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htm



You are trying to imply that the section of the act which authorizes that the Congress supports the Presidents going to the U.N. to engage in Diploamtic Efforts and Authorized him to act in support of U.N. decisions as a "BLANK CHECK FOR WAR"


(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Which is the lie that Dean tried to propagate. Clever attemt to support Deans misrepresentation. As well as leaving out the rest of the entire section three, which sets limitations to that support...


Subsections b (1) and (2) clearly require that the president obtain U.N support for use of force, (Notice this is NOT a DECLARATION OF WAR), Provide evideince that furtther use of diplmacy of that by using diplomatic means, the U.N. will be unable to force Iraq to abide by U.N. resolutions AND prove that Iraq constitutes a threat to U.S. National Security...

You cannot take a portion of a law and use it to enforce your own persal opinions of that law.

Only a judge can deconstruct a piece of legislation in order to determine what it allows and what it does not.

Anything else is practicing law without a license.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Ahem.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

Not requires.




Note: I was a law clerk for 4 years.

[bfusco]

3. looks positive

Good to see the chimp is in a tail spin. The other contenders are behind because they have not had the national exposure and the public is not familiar with them. Once a nomination is selected, the candidate will get more attention and can devote energies to taking on Bush. Polls in summer of 04 will be more indicative of where things stand.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Yep. They can only go up from here

looks good :thumbsup:

[DrGonzoLives]

15. I imagine that with the margin of error

that you could make an argument that any of those candidates could beat Bush at this point. Remember that the GOP hasn't really begun doing any kind of smearing yet (despite the protestations to contrary that all who support Dean are really GOP operatives).

Those numbers are encouraging, but don't mean a whole hell of a lot yet.