|
Edited on Sun Mar-14-04 12:03 AM by Nicholas_J
far from it. with Every negative add that Bushco puts out, Kerry's polling numbers go up, while Bush's go down. Seriously down and oddly enough when Nader is brought into the mix, it effects Bush's numbers as much as it effects Kerry's, leaing the differential betwen Kerry and Bush exactly the same. Of course, the die hard Voters in each party will vote either democrat or repubican, but the small group of swing voters, constituting 7 percent of the voters, are supporting Kerry 2 to 1 over Bush. Half of the expected Reagan Democrats have switched allegiance back from the Republicans to the Democratic party again, and Kerry was the only candidate who's polling records showed the smallest number of democrats who would vote for Bush if he was the nominee. In Dean's case, 20 percent of Democrats indicated that they would vote for Bush if Dean was the nominee, but only 10 percent arestating they will vote for Bush if Kerry is the nominee. Similar breakdoen for Repubicans who will go Democrat. In comparative polls more moderate Republicans will choose to vote Democrat If Kerry is the nominee rather than if Dean or one of the other candidates were the nominee. Twelve percent of Republicans have stated they will not vote for Bush, but for Kerry if he is the nominee. But only ten percent of Democrats have stated that they will vote for Bush if Kerry is the nominee, giving Kerry a two percent advantage over Bush in cross over voters. When you are talking a turnout of 40 to 50 million voters, this two percent gives Kerry an advantage of 800,000 to a million voters just from this cross over votes between parties. This does not include the 7 percent of independent voters who are the swing voters who do not vote straight party line, the group that both candidates are trying to convince to vote for them. The two percent differential in party crossover gives Kerry a larger advantage over Bush. Almost twice the popular vote win that Gore had in 2000. Since polls have Kerry getting thew support of twice as many of those independents right now, The polls indicate that Kerry would win by a very large margin, and that this campaign is not likely to be a close race, as political pundits are assuming. The polling information is indicating that Kerry will win this election by a anywhere from one million to 3 million votes.
So far, the negative ads that Bush is running seem to be affecting him negatively, rather than affecting Kerry negatively. Bush will be able to keep his core support, but every poll indicates that his negative campaigning is not appealing to the swing voters, and in fact, Kerry's not going negative except to refute Bush's negative advertising is having the same effect it had for Kerry in Iowa where he only went negative in response to negative campaighning by other democrats and it was extrmely effective for both Kerry and Edwards to only go negative in response to negative attacks on themselves.
All Kerry needs to do is respond to Bush's negative ads with valid information about his record on the issues that Bush is attempting to misrepresent, and Bushco's behavior seems to be blwing back into their own faces.
Only a few days ago, Bush's made statements about outsourcing of jobs being good for America, and today he did a 180 on that and stated that they were going to have to do something about outsourcing as it was bad for America. Bad move after sputting out ads talking about Kerry's flip flops.
As we long time Kerry supporters pointed out when supporters of other candidates were stating that the race wasn't over a week ago, and the fact that Kerry only had 1500 delegates was a sure indicator that we were goig to have a brokered convention, and that no-one would give their delegates to Kerry, so Kerry would have to give his dleegates to other other candidates, this scenario just wasnt going to occur. In fact I ams surprised by how fast this occurred, as I figured Kerry would end up passing the winning number around the middle of May.
So far, we Kerry supporters and the polls seem to have been rather accurate in our accessment of the campaign for the nomination. The polls have been rather strikingly accurate this time around, and in most cases, Kerry has won every primary and caucus by very close to the margins predicted in the polls. The polls, except those done by journals like Business Weeks and for large Business related consortiums all have Bush losing to Kerry by a rather large margin.
These poll have yet to be wrong. I estimate that Bush will do worse than even these polls state, particularly if another terrorist event ocurs in the next few months which would blow apart any semeblence of reality to Bush's claims that he is making the country safer. Even a small terrorist act would completely ruin the Bush campaign.
Given the recent events in Madrid, if anything, it has been proven that the world is not safer from Al Qaeda, and that the people who planned and initiated the events that caused the September 11th tragedy are still alive, well, free and active. The fact that there were no WMD's found in Iraq indicates that Saddam was no threat to us, as the main clain to his being a threat was that he would provide terrorists with WMD's to use against the United States. David Kays report that Saddams had no WMD's but had the means of producing them and is simply waiting for theU.N. to lift sanctions and the rest of the world to lift its observation of Iraq and its borders and eliminate the no-fly zomes indicated that the international community was correct and that Saddam and Iraq was safely bottled up and that there was enough time to continue inspections and wait to attempt a diplomatic solution, or wait to get full support in the U.N. for regime change. Enough time to make the case that even if Saddam did not pose a threat to the outside world, that his regime was brutal and engaged in massive human rights violations that made his removal warranted, and involve the U.N. with that regime change.
Kerry will be able to make this point very clearly, that he is not flip flopping about Iraq, that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S., that the U.N. and the diploamtic community should have been persuaded to be more fully involved in getting rid of an inhumane dictator.
And that it is not a good idea to go to war on a hunch, but rather, to only do so with the consent of the interantional community if there is no direct threat to the U.S. and that there was no possibility of waiting until we saw the mushroom clouds. Kerry will prosecute the case of the People v. Bush with the same skill that he pursued the case of the People v. Ollie North.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
