Poll: Bush In Trouble; So's Kerry

[Gary Sisco]

See Washington Post of today at the obvious URL. Look for the poll on the home page. It's absolutely amazing how evenly divided the population is, on almost every question, esp once you figure in the margins of error. Right now, it's virtually a dead heat between Bush and Kerry, but Kerry's support is shallower than Bush's by a long shot. A huge majority answered that they'd vote for Kerry only as a vote against Bush. If you do the math (all polls reveal that either party commands only about a third of the voters as loyalists), you'll see that what I've been saying all along is true (so far): Kerry's support is positive only with demohacks who'd vote dem regardless of who's running. Bush's support is more solidly based.

But the truth is that half of the population is extremely dissatisfied, if you look at the results of each answer.

I can't remember a time, even during Vietnam/Watergate, when the population was so disunited and evenly split as it is today.

Directing you to the site so as not to piss off Larry by printing the entire poll, Rainman

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Rainman

Kerry's support is positive only with demohacks who'd vote dem regardless of who's running. Bush's support is more solidly based.

From a quick read of the article, I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. It seems to me that the decline of Bush's ratings is mainly due to a decline among Republicans and independents.

Originally Posted by Rainman

Directing you to the site so as not to piss off Larry by printing the entire poll, Rainman

I understand that only those who don't want to read an article favor the URL approach over the pasting concept. Of course those muthers don't have to click on an URL, register and answer short polls if they happened to have cleaned out their cookies recently. The question boils down of what is easier for the overall of the JC "community". Is it easier for those who don't want to read an article to not read it than those who want to read it to go thu a clicking orgy?

[Tanager]

If you've registered before, you don't have to reregister just b/c you may have cleaned out your cookies. I just don't look to JC to be my mirror of every article on the Internet - I come here to read discussions and be pointed at interesting references, and I find wading through 43 column inches of text not written by someone here to get to the next post annoying.

And whether anyone cares or not, posting entire articles has long been considered extremely poor netiquette and can and will get you booted off of most of the numerous listservs to which I subscribe.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Half of the population is dissatisfied? I wonder if they'll vote?

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Rainman

Directing you to the site so as not to piss off Larry by printing the entire poll, Rainman

Hahaha. Gary, I already conceded that debate to you. Honestly, you were not even in my mind when I wrote that post. I had something else in mind entirely, but I didn't do a very good job of expressing myself.

I was reacting to the tendency towards back and forth exchanges between folks that consist exclusively of copied and pasted articles, with little or no commentary from the actual posters. It leads to a weird kind of "collage debate" that seems pointless to me, as if whoever posts the most articles in support of his side will "win." And although I might be interested in finding some dialogue between the posters, it takes yarns of scrolling over long articles to locate any actual text from the poster him/herself. In fact, there usually isn't any at all.

It was never about you, man. I felt kind of stupid after I went off on that rant, because I realized that other people here, such as yourself, post articles and contribute commentary of substance. That doesn't annoy me at all. But I didn't really articulate that part well, so I ended up lumping people in who I didn't intend to.

Setting the record straight,
Larry

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Tanager

If you've registered before, you don't have to reregister just b/c you may have cleaned out your cookies.

Ceded. You do have to login again. And sometimes that requires to go thru a quick survey as well and other rigomorors (sp?0

Originally Posted by Tanager

I just don't look to JC to be my mirror of every article on the Internet

Neither do I. I would not be more interested in JC just a giant links depository either.

Originally Posted by Tanager

I come here to read discussions

Me to comes here for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Tanager

And whether anyone cares or not, posting entire articles has long been considered extremely poor netiquette and can and will get you booted off of most of the numerous listservs to which I subscribe.

I did not know that. I would however hope that JC were a bit more liberal than your average site, when it comes to netiquette.

[walto]

My thing is that there are a number of sites I can't get to (or can't get to as easily or as free of pop-ups or other annoyances as I can here). Thus, I'm with Uli on this: I prefer cut-and-paste to links any day.

[Gary Sisco]

Sorry, Larry. I hadn't been back to that thread, as I'm busy as a mofo getting shit done so's I can leave for NY first thing in the a.m. Anyway, I like to steal your sign-off style...

Re the demohacks: Kerry's solid numbers in the voting *for* Kerry (as opposed to against Bush) are just about one-third, exactly. Which is just about exactly what the Democrat loyalists amount to among the populace. Ditto Repubs. In short, Kerry's "support" isn't support, but Bush opposition. Maybe it'll turn out the vote for him, but traditionally, people tend to vote more and in larger numbers when they're voting *for* someone (or something) as opposed to against someone. That's how I came to that conclusion, from the numbers. Kerry's guaranteed the dem loyalist vote (as any dem candidate would be). The question is whether he can turn those opposition to Bush votes into support for Kerry votes. So far, he's running like he doesn't want or even expect to win, so I'm not holding my breath.

(I'm not even voting for him, actually. I'm a spectator, interested in what the voting Americans decide; that's all. Kerry flunks both of my litmus tests, so I won't vote for him, and of course Bush is beyond the pale. Nader was never even within the pale. So, I'll be sitting this one out.)

[RBS]

Considering we're five months away from the election, the fact that Kerry is even tied with Bush at this point is a positive sign.

Originally Posted by RBS

Considering we're five months away from the election, the fact that Kerry is even tied with Bush at this point is a positive sign.

I wouldn't be so fast to make that claim, RBS.

If nothing else was learned from Dean, it's that you definitely do NOT want to peak too early.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by RBS

Considering we're five months away from the election, the fact that Kerry is even tied with Bush at this point is a positive sign.

I think it bodes poorly for Kerry. The Bush administration is at a cyclical low in terms of approval rating, but more importantly, they are at a low in terms of performance too. I would wager even the most rabid right winger would agree.

The Democratic candidate should be miles ahead! It only reinforces how pathetic Kerry is as a candidate. Bush has loads of time to win over a majority of voters. Kerry, on the other hand, can't muster a fucking thing worth caring about. He may be as bad as Gore, which is saying a lot.

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

I think it bodes poorly for Kerry. The Bush administration is at a cyclical low in terms of approval rating, but more importantly, they are at a low in terms of performance too. I would wager even the most rabid right winger would agree.

I can tell you that you are correct, Stone.

President Bush has been mediocre at best.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

I think it bodes poorly for Kerry. The Bush administration is at a cyclical low in terms of approval rating, but more importantly, they are at a low in terms of performance too. I would wager even the most rabid right winger would agree.

The Democratic candidate should be miles ahead! It only reinforces how pathetic Kerry is as a candidate. Bush has loads of time to win over a majority of voters. Kerry, on the other hand, can't muster a fucking thing worth caring about. He may be as bad as Gore, which is saying a lot.

Not necessarily. At this point in previous elections, Bush the elder was leading Clinton and Carter was leading Reagan.

According to a pollster who runs one of the polling services, at this point in the election cycle, the country starts looking at the incumbent to see if he's deserving of re-election. Then, they look at the challenger and decide if he's worthy of election.

[Gary Sisco]

It's been pretty much a dead heat all along between Bush and whoever, in the polls. Kerry hasn't changed anything, in that regard. He's just picking up the other half, which wouldn't be voting for Bush in any case. That's another aspect of my point -- that the society is so close to evenly split, regardless of other factors. It's never been this divided before, in my experience. This election will be too close to call until the votes are counted (I hope -- last time they didn't count four million or so -- outside Florida -- because Gore conceded). Anyway, no one's in a position to call it. It's much too close. With the margins of error, Bush could be leading. Or Kerry. No one can say. I think, myself, that it will be as close to a dead heat as any election has been in the country's history.

[Dr Dave]

Great. That's just great. More suspect returns, more farting around with the Electoral College. Can't wait.

PS: I'm told that Kerry is basically addressing the Swing States (I'd always hoped that Swing States would have lots of jazz). Whatever it is, he's getting very bad advice. I don't want Bush, but I don't want somebody who listens to Dick Gephardt, either. This business with calling for the opening of the Strategic Oil Reserve is just idiotic pandering. Gasoline is still cheap, even at $2. It was astoundingly cheap beforehand. And Bush has nothing to do with jobs going overseas, which is an overblown issue to start with. Bush IS an incredible user of doublespeak, and his office does things like take credit for the enactment of legislation it originally opposed, and so on. Why doesn't Kerry take the damn gloves off?