Bush Within 6 In New York, Within 4 In Illinois...Kerry Campaign Collapsing

[RINGLEADER]

Polls coming out later...

[oldandslow]

Ringleader-

I work with a dem pollster. (Doesn't make me a dem - although most of the time I lean that way - just a pretty fair statistician).

Lotsa new data out showing Bush really gaining ground with the female electorate. That, according to my analysis, was where he was going to lose the election, if he lost.

Seems women (esp suburbia) are now buying that Bush will make them "safer" than Kerry. Rural women were already more pro-bush due to his social issue stances. Women also suspect Kerry's character.

This is a terrible election for the dems.

They picked the one candidate that makes the Bob Dole campaign look good.

I hate the Iowa Caucus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were running the party (and I have made this suggestion) Dems would forget about the white house in 04 and spend tons of bucks in the locals and states.

Bush's coattails are short, imo. While I don't believe the dems can take back the house and/or senate, they can gain a house seat or two and stay even in the senate.

That's the best they can hope for this year. Unless Bush makes a huge error, or a Black Monday happens again, this election is over.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Ringleader-

I work with a dem pollster. (Doesn't make me a dem - although most of the time I lean that way - just a pretty fair statistician).

Lotsa new data out showing Bush really gaining ground with the female electorate. That, according to my analysis, was where he was going to lose the election, if he lost.

Seems women (esp suburbia) are now buying that Bush will make them "safer" than Kerry. Rural women were already more pro-bush due to his social issue stances. Women also suspect Kerry's character.

This is a terrible election for the dems.

They picked the one candidate that makes the Bob Dole campaign look good.

I hate the Iowa Caucus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were running the party (and I have made this suggestion) Dems would forget about the white house in 04 and spend tons of bucks in the locals and states.

Bush's coattails are short, imo. While I don't believe the dems can take back the house and/or senate, they can gain a house seat or two and stay even in the senate.

That's the best they can hope for this year. Unless Bush makes a huge error, or a Black Monday happens again, this election is over.

Got a question for you...what do you think about Rasmussen versus other pollsters with regards to whether party ID should be hard-weighted...?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Ringleader-

I work with a dem pollster. (Doesn't make me a dem - although most of the time I lean that way - just a pretty fair statistician).

Lotsa new data out showing Bush really gaining ground with the female electorate. That, according to my analysis, was where he was going to lose the election, if he lost.

Seems women (esp suburbia) are now buying that Bush will make them "safer" than Kerry. Rural women were already more pro-bush due to his social issue stances. Women also suspect Kerry's character.

This is a terrible election for the dems.

They picked the one candidate that makes the Bob Dole campaign look good.

I hate the Iowa Caucus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were running the party (and I have made this suggestion) Dems would forget about the white house in 04 and spend tons of bucks in the locals and states.

Bush's coattails are short, imo. While I don't believe the dems can take back the house and/or senate, they can gain a house seat or two and stay even in the senate.

That's the best they can hope for this year. Unless Bush makes a huge error, or a Black Monday happens again, this election is over.

Thanks for the info! There's a story in the Chicago Tribune today that echos a lot of what you say:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

This can still change quickly, but right now Bush is making his inroads with woman and Democrats. In pretty much all the polls he's drawing twice the Dem support than Kerry is getting from Republicans.

As far as the nomination process is concerned, this is what happens when the whole process is compressed and the process is not used to vet potential candidates but to select who you think is more "electable". Kerry's campaign played the primaries perfectly, focusing on Vietnam and then, with an assist from Terry McAuliffe, contrasting his service with negative stories about Bush's National Guard service.

I said at the time, and recently, that the Democrats blew their wad on the Bush National Guard stories back in February. Most of the Dems on the board thought I was nuts, but I really think that most people have moved beyond the issue barring some admission from the president that is relevant to his actions today.

I feel for you as a left-leaner because you're experiencing the same crap Republicans went through when Dole was the nominee in 96. I don't think Kerry's out of it by any means, but if he doesn't pummel Bush in the debates this election will be over. If Kerry does manage to beat Bush soundly in the debates he'll keep his hopes alive, but that first debate is going to be for all the marbles as far as Kerry is concerned.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Got a question for you...what do you think about Rasmussen versus other pollsters with regards to whether party ID should be hard-weighted...?

I think that it is important as a basis for judging the reliability of the poll. If a poll shows 45% Dem and 28% Republican it is BS. Same if the results are vice-versa. The ones that show more Republican relative to last election, however, aren't necessarily bad. If Democratic turn-out is depressed because of the candidate and Republicans are fired up then the Time poll is more accurate (that shows 34% Republican/35% Democratic). If the turn-out is the same as last year then Rasmussen is probably closer to the truth.

I tend to look at these two different types of analysis as best case-worst case.

Dick Morris, for what it's worth, thinks that the Republican to Democrat ratio will be much closer to even this year based on...what the pollsters are seeing.

[oldandslow]

Kerry's early (and almost entire) campaign message was that he was a soldier. Look at how he won the Iowa Caucus - ran the ad with the guy who he picked up out of the water - and became the Instahero who could be the war Pres and look "generalish" when he stood next to GW.

What an ignorant thing to do. People are not stupid. They know when you have a propensity to hang with Fonda and throw away (or not throw away) medals that you probably are not going to be viewed favorably on the "Soldier Boy" front.

The dems had a chance for a "realigning election" with this particular campaign and blew it.

I know I am ranting, but let me give you another piece of analysis-

My thoughts on the Bush surge go to the convention
speeches. It is all people watch from the conventions anyway. My take-

Michael Gearson (Bush speech writer) is a genious. Terry Edmonds (ex-Clinton-Kerry speech writer did not fair so well). Believe it or not, Clinton actually penned many of his own speeches - Edmonds just added flair. I think they attempted the same approach with Kerry and well...Kerry is no Clinton. Further, Bush's speech was of a higher intellectual quality than Kerry's was. Take a look at this

Bush - words 4993 - words per sentence 18.8 - sentences per paragraph 2.9 -characters per word 4.6 - Reading Level 10.5.

Kerry - words 5153 - words per sentence 16.1 - sentences per paragrapgh 2.65 - Characters per word 4.3 - Reading Level 8.0.

Kerry's speech was dumbed down, Bush's was not. What I think Kerry was attempting to do was to play to Joe six-pack everyman. Further, the "help is on the way" lines are strictly Southern Populist 101. People, however, are smart enough to realize that Kerry is NOT a southern populist. Edwards, yeah. Kerry no. I honestly believe if Edwards makes that speech, the polls do not move as far as they did.

Second, Bush's speech made him seem presidential. Confident. The themes of safety and security play really well (especially when you add the Russian disaster). People want to see that confidence. They don't want to be told that help is on the way by a blue blood. What they want is to feel SAFE. They want to believe that their country is doing the right thing. Bush's speech, I think, was a fine case of eloquent simplicity. Patriotism, security, moral high ground, and confidence work much better than paternalism from the NE.

I would never in a million years vote for GWB. However, I can recognize a professionally run campaign when I see one. Rove may even be better than Carville.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Loki

jaz sez so eh? it must be right then.

polls schmolls....

The biggest indicator that things are not going well, is the silence of Jaz. He has been noticably absent here of late.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

The biggest indicator that things are not going well, is the silence of Jaz. He has been noticably absent here of late.

He used the excuse he was on the football format, but I haven't seen him posting there either.

He looked like a fool with the CBS and Rather defense. Like Kerry, he is skulking nearby and hoping for it to blow over.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

He used the excuse he was on the football format, but I haven't seen him posting there either.

Thought I would post some post numbers to give you an idea of whether or not the 'start of football season' is a ruse or not:

9/16: Chiefs: 0, DC: 0
9/15: Chiefs: 6, DC: 1
9/14: Chiefs: 20, DC: 0
9/13: Chiefs: 7, DC: 0
9/12: Chiefs: 5, DC: 15
9/11: Chiefs: 8, DC: 16
9/10: Chiefs: 3, DC: 50

[Michael Michigan]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Kerry's early (and almost entire) campaign message was that he was a soldier. Look at how he won the Iowa Caucus - ran the ad with the guy who he picked up out of the water - and became the Instahero who could be the war Pres and look "generalish" when he stood next to GW.

What an ignorant thing to do. People are not stupid. They know when you have a propensity to hang with Fonda and throw away (or not throw away) medals that you probably are not going to be viewed favorably on the "Soldier Boy" front.

The dems had a chance for a "realigning election" with this particular campaign and blew it.

I know I am ranting, but let me give you another piece of analysis-

My thoughts on the Bush surge go to the convention
speeches. It is all people watch from the conventions anyway. My take-

Michael Gearson (Bush speech writer) is a genious. Terry Edmonds (ex-Clinton-Kerry speech writer did not fair so well). Believe it or not, Clinton actually penned many of his own speeches - Edmonds just added flair. I think they attempted the same approach with Kerry and well...Kerry is no Clinton. Further, Bush's speech was of a higher intellectual quality than Kerry's was. Take a look at this

Bush - words 4993 - words per sentence 18.8 - sentences per paragraph 2.9 -characters per word 4.6 - Reading Level 10.5.

Kerry - words 5153 - words per sentence 16.1 - sentences per paragrapgh 2.65 - Characters per word 4.3 - Reading Level 8.0.

Kerry's speech was dumbed down, Bush's was not. What I think Kerry was attempting to do was to play to Joe six-pack everyman. Further, the "help is on the way" lines are strictly Southern Populist 101. People, however, are smart enough to realize that Kerry is NOT a southern populist. Edwards, yeah. Kerry no. I honestly believe if Edwards makes that speech, the polls do not move as far as they did.

Second, Bush's speech made him seem presidential. Confident. The themes of safety and security play really well (especially when you add the Russian disaster). People want to see that confidence. They don't want to be told that help is on the way by a blue blood. What they want is to feel SAFE. They want to believe that their country is doing the right thing. Bush's speech, I think, was a fine case of eloquent simplicity. Patriotism, security, moral high ground, and confidence work much better than paternalism from the NE.

I would never in a million years vote for GWB. However, I can recognize a professionally run campaign when I see one. Rove may even be better than Carville.

Interesting take.

Thanks.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

I think that it is important as a basis for judging the reliability of the poll. If a poll shows 45% Dem and 28% Republican it is BS. Same if the results are vice-versa. The ones that show more Republican relative to last election, however, aren't necessarily bad. If Democratic turn-out is depressed because of the candidate and Republicans are fired up then the Time poll is more accurate (that shows 34% Republican/35% Democratic). If the turn-out is the same as last year then Rasmussen is probably closer to the truth.

I tend to look at these two different types of analysis as best case-worst case.

Dick Morris, for what it's worth, thinks that the Republican to Democrat ratio will be much closer to even this year based on...what the pollsters are seeing.

Forgive me if this is a dumb comment/question. I'm no polling expert.

Isn't polling based on the idea that sampling should be as purely random as possible? If it is important to make sure your sampling of republicans and democrats is as close to proportional as possible, why isn't it also important to have a proportional mix of employed/unemployed. And a proportional mix of adults with children and those without. And a proportional mix of veterans and nonveterans. And a proportional mix of college educated professionals and blue color laborers. And a proportional mix of elderly and young. Why can't random sampling account for party affiliation in the same way it accounts for all these other factors that might impact voting preference?

*edit* Or are you saying that comparing the dem/repub breakdown after the fact is a method you use to evaluate the randomness of the sample rather than a tool you think should be used to generate that sample in the first place? */edit*

[Hel'n]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Polls coming out later...

You mean he only has to kick two field goals to tie, and a touchdown to win?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

I would never in a million years vote for GWB. However, I can recognize a professionally run campaign when I see one. Rove may even be better than Carville.

That's a lot of words in your post, but I think the key, even more than the Swifties to the sea change is the comparison of the two candidate's speeches.
The reporting for duty, followed by the salute is as embarassing an image as the bunny suit. So much so, that by the time of Bush's speech, it served as an avatar for the entire speech in the minds of many.
Then Bush walked out and gave an appropriately, in turn, calming, dignified, passionate and compassionate speech that, ONCE AGAIN, quelled the fears of supporters who wondered if he was up to the task and silenced the prejudices of fence-sitters or non-supporters who had been painted an entirely different picture of the guy.
Nothing makes those pictures of Bush as Gollum or Bush as Hitler, or Bush as Alfred E. Neumann, or Bush as Little Lord Fauntleroy, look stupid and sad as the image he presented that night.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Has anyone volunteered on a campaign before? Is there even such a thing? I saw it on Taxi Driver. Remember, I don't live in the real world.

You just keep watching those movies Jenson.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Cochise

If the polls continue trending the way they have in the past month or so he could end up pulling 40 states.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch pinkounderground and this forum if Bush captured about 400 electoral votes?

Let me tell you about the landscape in California. The conservatives will vote in this election come heck or high water. In my part of the state, no one even talks about Kerry at all. At A's games, all I have seen is Kerry. So its like this. If the Jaz's of this world get depressed to the point that they won't post, talk, cajole, drag those that are in their social spheres to the polls to vote inbetween bong hits, then the turnout of Libs in Cally will be soft. I don't know whether it will be soft enough to overturn the recent massive switch to the D party out here, but given an early Bush romp in the East, the odds are good that the vote will be depressed enough out here to put the state in play.

The polls close in Main, and Pa at 5:00 pacific time. Most have not even commuted the 1.5 hour commute home at that time so by the time they get home they will hear it on the drive time radio. California dreamin for a complete fuggin rout.