It's Kerry in a Blowout!

Reports the LA Times, citing a recent poll conducted by the paper:

Kerry led Bush by 51% to 44% nationally in a two-way matchup, and by 48% to 42% in a three-way race, with independent Ralph Nader drawing 4%.

Whole story here. "Lifting Kerry," writes the Times' Ron Brownstein, is a powerful tailwind of dissatisfaction with the nation's course and Bush's answers for challenges at home and abroad." Or, as The Onion put it recently, "Poll: Many Americans Still Unsure Whom To Vote Against."

Of course, we all know the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day. Or, in the case of the 2000 presidential race, the Supreme Court vote weeks later.

Comments

[thoreau]

Well, we can (and will) argue forever about the proper standard for counting a dimpled or hanging chad and what that would imply for the 2000 outcome. And we can (and will) argue forever about the legality or illegality or whatever word you like of the various rulings by the FL and US Supreme Courts. And in all of these complicated issues one thing will become clear: Those who wanted candidate X to win will be absolutely convinced that the only appropriate way to count (or not count) a chad and the only appropriate court rulings were the ones that favored candidate X. And everybody will insist that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with their (surely coincidental!) partisan preference being in line with their interpretation of the law.

But for those interested in 2004, the US Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to influence the outcome of the election: A Justice could resign at the end of this month, and set in motion an apocalyptic confirmation battle with repercussions for the November election. "The Passion of the Nominee: All abortion, all the time!"

[Joe L.]

"However, I doubt Kerry's numbers will hold. Everytime he's in the public eye for a prolonged period of time, his numbers start dropping. That's generally not a good sign for a politician. :)" *ROTFLMAO* Well said, Dan... still Dan you have a bad attitude, it's like you'd want one of these guys to win! Come on, around here it's importatnt to be RIGHT not Victorious! Around here we hate everyone that might win an election, because he/she has sold out!

[Call me snake]

Thoreau, excellent obfuscation, I'm not sure what you meant, save disclosing the revelation that politics tends to be partisan. A credible Captain Renault impression.

Gary Glitter:
Gore's strategy was to force recounts in the counties he deemed favorable...when multiple recounts all had Bush holding steady at +600 or so after 30+ days, Gore was screwed. He didn't want a full state recount, because he already knew the status of the counties most favorable to him and you'd hate to see Bush pick up recount votes (under the more strict recount standard) from the panhandle and Northern/Central FL...you really look like an asshole with Bush up in +1,000 area after a full state recount.

Gore's team fucked up with the critical initial decision of a recount strategy...Understandable, high pressure situation, mistakes happen.

When's Rock and Roll #3 coming out?

[R C Dean]

Doesn't that poll show Bush leading in some of the battleground states, which would deliver to him the electoral college win? The popular vote is the consolation prize, given to Mr. Congeniality. The electoral college math is what counts.

[stubby]

I'm too busy (and lazy) to go back and look it up, but I remember the LAT getting a lot of ridicule in the aftermath of Arnie's victory in California, because right up until the recall election the paper had been running polls saying that recall fever had waned and the people were going to let Gray Davis keep his job. The paper basically flooded the zone for two weeks before the election with stories about how that was going to play out; I think Mickey Kaus got a big giggle out of it.

[thoreau]

Alright, I'll call you snake.

All I meant is that it's pretty pointless to rehash the FL recount yet again, as some posters were doing. The debates go nowhere, and 9 times out of 10 the participants wind up acting like partisan hacks.

My other comment was that the election could get interesting if a Supreme Court Justice retires in a few weeks. The inevitable battle, complete with mudslinging against the nominee (whoever he or she might be, hence "The Passion of the Nominee") and regurgitated abortion arguments ("All abortion, all the time!") will undoubtedly complicate the campaign. Instead of foreign policy and the domestic economy being front and center, with culture war garbage used to keep the partisans loyal and eager to turn out on election day, abortion (the true 3rd rail of American politics, IMHO) will be a major issue.

[Joe L.]

Thoreau,
Why stop there, why not TWO Supremes, and Bill Frist, plus several Republicans in the House? What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?

I think it it true that one or two of the Supremes WANT to retire, but they are going to ahng on until after the Nov. elections. I believe Rehnquist is one of the potential retirees. I think he'll hang on until after Nov. to avoid just that problem and then give the new President, Kerry or more likely Bush the chance to replace him.

[Jason Ligon]

"Around here we hate everyone that might win an election, because he/she has sold out!"

Cart and horse, JoeL. We hate that you have to sell out to win an election. If I thought that liberty's retreat could be stalled by a compromise, I would support a compromise.

I may be wrong about this, but I have the impression that every compromise helps liberals and doesn't help small government types. The compromises that are made always move the base line of regulation in the liberal's favor, mostly because rolling back regulation is seen as an impossible position. I want no gun control. Sarah Brady wants tons of gun control, and the compromise is we get some gun control. Next cycle, I want none, she wants tons, we compromise on some MORE gun control. Regulatory bodies never go away, and taxes are doomed to be raised in the future if we compromise by spending our asses off now.

[Larry]

I got a great idea which will prevent the Supreme Court from settling the election. This time, if you lose the count, DON'T GO TO COURT.

[Gary Gunnels]

Call me snake,

"Gore's strategy was to force recounts in the counties he deemed favorable..."

Even if that's the case, what does this have to do with my statement? Nothing.

Dan,

"Actually, virtually every poll on that site, going back for over half a year, shows them as being statistically tied."

Quite obviously I was referring to current polls (since the object of discussion was a current LA Times poll); furthermore, Bush would rather be on top of a poll even where the margin of error could make him tied with Kerry.

[Mark Fox]

Jason: You describe a mechanism in line with Albert Jay Nock's thinking. The state is incapable of reducing itself.

When they get around to asking for your gun, give 'em the bullets first.

[Dan]

"Actually, virtually every poll on that site, going back for over half a year, shows them as being statistically tied."

Quite obviously I was referring to current polls

Well, *every* current poll is a statistical tie. So I'm not sure why you feel that "quite obviously" helps your point.

furthermore, Bush would rather be on top of a poll even where the margin of error could make him tied with Kerry.

Sure; it has a certain value as spin, since most Americans are have lousy math skills. But I wasn't commenting on where the candidates would "rather be" in the polls. I was just commenting on the fact that neither of them is winning in the polls at the moment. I already know where they'd rather be; they'd both rather be winning. 🙂

There's a new poll up at pollingreport, by the way -- Bush&Kerry at 42 each, +/-3, with 10% undecided. So the "they're tied" trend seems to still be holding on.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

Well, it is interesting how anemic Bush is at this point; indeed, it might swing my vote in his favor, since a weak second term President is something I like.

[madman]

This poll just doesn't make sense. First it's registered voters, not likely voters. If Kerry is so ahead, don't you think he shoud be even farther ahead in so called battleground states?

[Joe L.]

1) it's early days yet
2) Several models show a blow out... for Bush
3) Kerry is losing on the politcal futures market.

[Gary Gunnels]

Joe L.,

(1) Both sides always say that right up to election day.

(2) I'll believe a blow-out for either guy when I see it.

(3) So?

[Douglas Fletcher]

The usual reliable sources, LA Times, NY Times. Whatever. Times is bad.

[Gary Gunnels]

Douglas Fletcher,

Try here then:

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

Nearly all the polls reported on that site have Kerry with some sort of lead. Bush's job, favorability, etc. ratings all suck too. The only thing keeping him in the game at this is the fact that Kerry also sucks.

[Joe L.]

1) Actually both sides may say it, but it doesn't mean much, in 1984, 1988, and 1992 and 1996 it was obvious by Aug who was going to win. So, it's early days yet. But we'll see in August.

2)Define "blow-out"... will it be a 5 point victory for either candidate will it be an electoral vote landslide? Or will it be a repeat of 2000? I don't think it'll be 2000, I think that the inflection point was 2000 and that it will be Dubya, by 2-3 points... any more than 3 points and it's a stomping!

3) So, so not much but the betting isn't on Kerry winning.

[Gary Gunnels]

(1) I'm sure if Bush is behind in October you'll still be saying "its early days" yet.

(2) 3 points is not a "stomping"; either party would have to lose by ten or more points before that occurs.

(3) Yes, and I recall how the futures market predicted Dean's triumph as well. This is a bit like saying that the NYSE is an accurate gauge of the state of the economy.

[Mark Fox]

Is Kerry even in the race anymore? I haven't seen an ad with Teresa extolling his "optimistic spirit" for at least a week.

[Gary Gunnels]

Mark Fox,

I thought he suspended his campaign for the RR funeral sweeps week?

[Madog]

Kerry pulled his ads following Regan's death, since that what's making news right now. Bush could drop a nuke on N. Korea right now and no one would notice.

[Joe L.]

Uh Gary you just jumped the rails...

(1) I'm sure if Bush is behind in October you'll still be saying "its early days" yet.- No, I knew in 1988 that I was throwing away my vote on Dukkakis and freely admitted it, knew the same thing in 1992 and 1996. And I knew this by Aug-Sept. of those years.

2) 3 points is not a "stomping"; either party would have to lose by ten or more points before that occurs.- A three point victory is solid win, nationally, a 5 point win is a landslide, sorry Gary. Go look at landslides in this century and I think you'll discover that to be true. I doubt anyone has lost by 10 points in 50-60 years. Remember Reagan stomped Carter, he only got 27% of the ELIGIBLE voters, votes... he didn't beat Carter by that much in proportion of votes, yes in states and electoral votes but not really in votes per se. It's a function of the Electoral College system to rack up vicotries that at some levels don't really seem all that grand, but by state margins and electoral votes are big wins. I don't think Kerry or Dubya are going to win by 5 points, much less 10 points. i'd give Dubya a 3 point win, as I said before.

[deron]

If the poll shows anything it's that there is a possibility that Kerry might win the popular vote. He may still lose the election.

It's be very interesting if Bush wins, but loses the popular vote.

["Silent Cal" Coolidge]

Mr. Kerry is being circumspect and showing the people he is not one who will wantonly interrupt their TV schedules. Quiet waters run deep. It worked for me.

[Gary Gunnels]

Joe L.,

(1) Sure. 🙂

2) "A three point victory is solid win..."

You referred to it as a "stomping" earlier.

"..nationally, a 5 point win is a landslide, sorry Gary."

By whose measure?

"I doubt anyone has lost by 10 points in 50-60 years."

Let's see, LBJ beat Goldwater by over 20 points (1964); Nixon beat McGovern by ~16 points (1972); and Reagan beat Mondale by ~18 points (1984). That's three elections in the last forty years were someone lost by ten or more points.

"Remember Reagan stomped Carter, he only got 27% of the ELIGIBLE voters, votes..."

Now your changing the terms of the debate.

[Call me snake]

Sorry Gilespie,
Nice rimshot on the Supreme Court but even the NY Times's recount, (and many other orgs.) using the most liberal interpretations of "vote recorded," still found that Bush carried Florida by a 500-ish votes.

You of all people should encourage the personal responsibility necessary to correctly punch a hole, or perhaps ask a question if you think you're about to pull the trigger for "Hitler had no agressive intentions toward the US" Buchanan.

[Ryan]

"Remember Reagan stomped Carter, he only got 27% of the ELIGIBLE voters"

Ahh the new meme. Reagan's victories weren't representative of even a majority of the people.

Oh and to top the meme off, let's fly Clinton's approval rating as testimonial to his greatness. Convieniently ignoring that Clinton got far less a percentage of eligible voters in the new bar we've set for Reagan.

[Gary Gunnels]

Call me snake,

The NY Times, etc. recounts were unofficial and rather moot acts (ask yourself if there counts had come out the other way what would have occurred - would Gore be in the White House now? - no). Ultimately the election was ended by the Supreme Court's actions - and in ending it they were the final arbitors of the "process" that led to Bush's election - indeed, that's part of their job in a way - to bring finality to contests between opposing parties.

[Joe L.]

OK, your point is taken and made Gary I was WRONG. But still I don't see this as a 10 point win for anyone, but I still don't see Kerry wining, but look me up in August and if my side is down 3-5 points I'll tell you who'se going to win (Kerry).

[Dan]

Nearly all the polls reported on that site have Kerry with some sort of lead.

Actually, virtually every poll on that site, going back for over half a year, shows them as being statistically tied. The few which show him in the lead are polls of registered voters, not likely voters, which traditionally overestimate the performance of Democrats (for example, polls of registered voters showed Gore defeating Bush easily).

So the correct interpretation of this, and other, polls is "we have no idea who's winning". Which is bad news for Bush, inasmuch as he used to have a commanding lead.

However, I doubt Kerry's numbers will hold. Everytime he's in the public eye for a prolonged period of time, his numbers start dropping. That's generally not a good sign for a politician. 🙂

[Dan]

4 long years of a weak second term president with a fistfull of nukes and nothing to lose but a narrowing window of pre-rapture reputational honor??

After reading posts like that, I am left with a nagging suspicion that total nuclear annihilation would raise the average intelligence level of the universe.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

My point was that though he may have some authority as President in a second, he would lack the power a first term President often has in the first year or so of his Presidency to get his agenda through. Then again, Kerry could be an especially weak first term President, so the issue requires some thought.

[joe]

This is an election with an incumbent. Such elections are about the sitting president - either he kicks the upstart's ass and cruises to victory (Reagan, Ike, FDR, Clinton), or he doesn't, and is remembered as a failed one term president (Bush, Carter, Ford, Hoover). There have been very few close elections with a sitting president.

Do you see George Bush kicking John Kerry's ass? I don't see that. Undecideds know enough about George Bush to make up their mind to vote for him, if they were going to do that. But they haven't broken for him. The fact that Bush isn't pulling ahead, that there are a lot of people looking to find out more about this Kerry guy, means Bush probably isn't going to be able to bring them home.

Kerry by 2-4% - which, in this 45-45-10 nation, would be pretty big. But as we've all learned, the ideological split is also largely geographic, and the Electoral College could cause all sorts of mischeif.

[bianco]

gary--

4 long years of a weak second term president with a fistfull of nukes and nothing to lose but a narrowing window of pre-rapture reputational honor ??

[joe]

The same Times poll gives Democrats a 9 point lead on the generic Congressional ballot, (54-45). I know the alignment of the moons makes a takeover in 2004 unlikely, but 2006 is just around the corner. I wouldn't be so certain Kerry would be a weak first term president.

[WSgoat]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...