Bush Pulls Ahead In National Polls For First Time All Year - LA Times

[odowdpa]

Bush is getting hot at the right time and with the convention right around the corner, things are looking good for the GOP. However, I can't stress how important Florida is for both candidates.

LA Times Poll Shows Bush Leading Kerry


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - President Bush has pulled ahead of Democratic challenger John Kerry for the first time this year in a Los Angeles Times poll, the newspaper reported on Wednesday in its online edition.

The survey taken Saturday through Tuesday showed that 49 percent of registered voters favored Bush, while 46 percent preferred Kerry. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Survey responses indicated that Kerry had been hurt by attacks on his Vietnam service record by Bush backers, the Times said.

In a poll taken just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry had a 2 percentage point lead over Bush, the newspaper said.


The Times Poll interviewed 1,597 adults nationwide, including 1,352 registered voters.



08/26/04 02:46

 

[DrTeeth]

 

[ThatGuy]

Meh. Kerry had a pre-convention bounce, too.

Plus, it's still within the margin of error.

And it contradicts this poll from The Economist, which is also still within the margin of error.

 

[Popmartijn]

Lately, I've found this site more useful (thanks to DaveC): http://www.electoral-vote.com
And for those who like Republican-slanted sites: http://www.electionprojection.com/

Here it seems Kerry still has a small advantage. It appears he may even win the elections if he loses Florida and Ohio (as long as he doesn't lose anything else).

C ya!

Marty

 

[odowdpa]

This is going right down to the wire. I just read some other polls that just came out, Bush was up in a CNN Gallop Pole, but was down by a percent in a poll by George Washington Univ.

I know all these nat'l polls are just fodder and that its the state polls that hold water, but its interesting to read about them.

Another great site (independent from a party) is:
www.rasmussenreports.com

68 days...

 

[STING2]

With the ultra liberal LA Times giving Bush the lead, it is definitely not good news for Kerry.

As it stands, Bush is ahead in most polls even prior to the start of the convention. The Republicans have an opportunity to open up a solid lead with the convention. The Democrats do not have any other similar media event coming before the election unless you consider the debates. Regardless of the party, your in trouble if you need the debates to lift you over the top.

 

[ThatGuy]

So is it good news for Bush when Fox News shows Kerry ahead?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130234,00.html

It's too close to call for now. But as an incumbent Bush sould be polling higher than he is now.

 

[BVS]

The Democrats do not have any other similar media event coming before the election unless you consider the debates. Regardless of the party, your in trouble if you need the debates to lift you over the top.

Shouldn't the debates be a deciding factor. Up to this point it's basically a popularity contest. Yes some American such as most on this board may know where they stand on real issues but I dare say the majority of the population really don't, the debates are a platform designed to give the public a fair and balanced look at the canidates. I think this election will come down to the debates. We'll see if Bush can hold on to any lead after that.

 

[odowdpa]

It's going to be very interesting to see if Bush gets the convention bounce. If he gets 4-5 points, it could open the whole thing up. However, everyone thought Kerry would get a bounce and we all saw what happened. Something very similar could happen to Bush. Time will tell on that one.

 

[STING2]

So is it good news for Bush when Fox News shows Kerry ahead?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130234,00.html

It's too close to call for now. But as an incumbent Bush sould be polling higher than he is now.

Really, what do you think that incumbent from the 1948 presidential election would have to say about that?


Or

That incumbent in the 1916 election?

 

[ThatGuy]

I don't know. What were the poll numbers in 1948 and 1916?

 

[verte76]

TG, in 1948 and 1916 incumbents got re-elected, but in extremely close elections. In fact, there's the infamous newspaper headline from 1948 that falsely claims that Dewey beat Truman. It was *that* close. I'm not sure there's any certain things you can say about incumbency other than it's usually an advantage. I'm not sure that's true these days. People have a heck of alot of more trouble trusting politicians these days than they used to. Watergate had a hell of alot to do with this, it sort of shattered a more innocent view of politics that we had before it. We may be living in an era of one-term presidents. This would actually be really awful if you ask me, but it doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

[STING2]

I don't know. What were the poll numbers in 1948 and 1916?

Both were very close elections where the incumbent barely won. There was one paper that reported that Dewey had defeated Truman in 1948. The point here is that incumbents have been in close elections and won.

 

[deep]

Nobody likes my predictions.

My hunch is that W wins with around 300 electoral votes


On the nation wide popular vote. He wins by about 3-5 per cent.


That is my handicapping as of now.

 

[kobayashi]

Regardless of the party, your in trouble if you need the debates to lift you over the top.

why cant debates be a deciding factor?

im not certain it is what you were alluding to, but it seems to me that american political discourse has always been averse to issues/policy discussions in open forum via a frank manner.

a public sphere let down...

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Polls dont mean anything. We'll see in November. This Republican dirty trick
campaign about Kerry's Vietnam service
is really getting lame.

 

[STING2]

First, the debates are not like the conventions which are a 4 night 100% selling of the candidate and the trashing of the opponent. In the debates either candidates good points are offset by the others points. That is why in this era its poor in terms of its capacity to sway large numbers of people I think.

The only way one loses a debate is if they screw up big time or something. The candidates know essentially what they will be asked, how they will answer and how they will rebutt their opponents comments. Bush in 2000 was supposed to be easy to lick in the debates but he did just fine against both McCain and Gore.

I think the last time anyone got a major boost from a debate was Ronald Reagan against Carter in 1980. Few people have had the speaking ability of Reagan though and Bush and Kerry are not classic speakers. Look for the results of the debates to simply be a draw.

 

[nbcrusader]

Start counting the hanging chads.......

 

[ThatGuy]

Both were very close elections where the incumbent barely won. There was one paper that reported that Dewey had defeated Truman in 1948. The point here is that incumbents have been in close elections and won.

I know the history. I just wanted to see if had the numbers to back up your claims. Those races are famous for being "close" but I've never heard just how close the pre-election polls were.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that we can all enjoy a Bush victory on some level, those who are against him can enjoy 4 more years of smarmy comments and pointless Bush bashing and endless whining about being cheated, those who are for him can watch a second term president pursue a stronger War on Terror without the constraint of being reelected (I think that Iran is going to be in for a big surprise if they try anything at all ).

If Kerry wins then you will have a delay during the changeover (an ideal window of oppertunity for an attack). Iraq will continue along the same path, the world will try to make him crawl to the will of the UN and EU but I doubt he would, it will be business as usual.

 

[Salome]

I for one am looking forward to 4 years of 'pointless' Kerry bashing
because I for one don't give a hoot who the preseident is as long as he shows some evidence that he can be trusted to lead the mightiest country in the world

 

[verte76]

I strongly disagree about debates not making a difference. Al Gore was leading Bush by eleven points before the first debate, and then Bush won the debate, or at least he did really well in it. It's my personal opinion that the debates had a heck of alot more to do with the election results than the pundits did, a classic idiot move on the part of these pundits. Can you tell that I'm not a big fan of pundits? Who the fk do they think they are? They're a bunch of spin machines. The pundits got thrown off during the Florida controversy, and they never, in my opinion, got it right.

 

[nbcrusader]

Debates have been reduced to electoral entertainment. It is not a clear articulation and comparison of issues and positions. It's all about expectations, spin, sound bites and image.

 

[verte76]

Perhaps they only are "electoral entertainment". But politics is all about perception and image. In 1976 Gerald Ford pulled an infamous gaffe during a debate with Jimmy Carter. He made the absurd claim that "Poland is not under Soviet domination", when it was behind the Iron Curtain. Some people think this cost him the election. Polish communities all over were angry. In 1980, Carter was ahead in the polls until the debate with Reagan shortly before the election. Reagan won the debate. Then the election wasn't particularly close as Reagan carried 45 states. Then there were the things that didn't help candidates lagging in the polls. Michael Dukakis pulled an infamous blunder with an impassive answer to a question about his wife getting raped. George Bush Sr. looked at his watch during a debate in 1992. With the dynamics of this particular campaign such a thing very well might not happen. But it's certainly not unheard of.

 

[SouthPark(R)]

debates do make or break elections.

in our modern age, i think it's who has the best 'telegenic' sizzle and believability regardless of a candidate's polictical affiliation in a close election.

 

[ThatGuy]

I like Kerry's challenge for weekly debates. Won't happen, though.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_18&printer=1

 

[swizzlestick]

Nobody likes my predictions.

My hunch is that W wins with around 300 electoral votes


On the nation wide popular vote. He wins by about 3-5 per cent.


That is my handicapping as of now.

I love your prediction, Deep.

Now if you could only predict that the Chiefs will win the Super Bowl!

 

[kobayashi]

expectations, spin, sound bites and image.

when does this stop, if it does,...

a clear articulation and comparison of issues and positions.

and this begin, if it does, in any election campaign?

in an electoral environment of glitz, lies and deception set amidst a media willing to blindly propogate rather than challenge all that is packaged for them in press releases and talking points, the latter points will never see the light of day.

 

[verte76]

I've seen campaign cycles that went practically from beginning to end with absolutely no discussion of any issues. The worst example of this had to be 1988. There were something like two issues debated during the campaign, a controversy over the pledge of allegience to the flag, and guns. Dukakis had vetoed some pledge law in Massachusetts and he was for gun control, and the Bush campaign ran an incredibly negative, muddy campaign. It was a real penance to go through that crud. But most campaign cycles are somewhat more substantive. They're all full of lies, deception, all sorts of manipulative games to try to make some guy king. It's glossy, superficial lipstick.

 

[odowdpa]

CNN just came out with their prediction and they are saying that if the election were today, W would win the electoral college - slightly.

From John Mercurio and Molly Levinson
CNN Political Unit
Friday, August 27, 2004 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT)


NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush heads into the Republican National Convention next week with a small lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the all-important Electoral College, according to a new CNN analysis of state polling, advertising buys and interviews with campaign strategists and neutral analysts.

Bush would receive 274 electoral votes to Kerry's 264 if the election were held today, less than 10 weeks before November 2 and three days before the opening of the GOP convention in Madison Square Garden. If Kerry were to pick up a state as small as Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied, throwing the election into the House of Representatives.

CNN's political unit compiled the electoral map after reviewing state polls and conducting extensive interviews with pollsters from both campaigns, as well as local political reporters, strategists and consultants.

The map bears a remarkable resemblance to the results of the 2000 election, in which Bush defeated Al Gore by just five electoral votes and lost the popular vote. Bush remains strong in the South, the prairie and mountain states. Kerry leads in his native Northeast and on the West Coast. The two candidates continue to battle evenly in industrial Midwest states.

Bush is carrying every state he carried four years ago -- except New Hampshire, which has four electoral votes.