Huge post convention bounce for Bush

[SirNitram]

While I'm not sure the results are entirely objective, I think you're engaging in wishful thinking if you think it's all made up. Time isn't known for hysterics, right-wing politics, or under handed reporting.

Quite, which is why I added it's possibly just wishful thinking. We'll see in a few days.

Just noted this on the website:

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.


It's looking pretty damn genuine.

Genuine != Reliable, in polling.

But SRBI is generally accurate. I'll bite, barring further evidence.

[Stormbringer]

Genuine != Reliable, in polling.

But SRBI is generally accurate. I'll bite, barring further evidence.

I meant a genuine bounce out of the Republican Convention. *Shrug*

[Vympel]

In the Zogby poll, taken on the same day as the Time poll, Sept. 2, Bush leads Kerry 46% to 44%. The American Research poll taken on Sept. 1 shows 48% to 47% in favor of Bush. Methinks the Time poll is an anomaly.

[Stormbringer]

In the Zogby poll, taken on the same day as the Time poll, Sept. 2, Bush leads Kerry 46% to 44%. The American Research poll taken on Sept. 1 shows 48% to 47% in favor of Bush. Methinks the Time poll is an anomaly.

Or given that seem to have been trying to get active voters the bounce was more demographically confined?

[MKSheppard]

"Actively campaigning" eh? I suppose you could call the Kerry campaign an active one if the standard of "active" is that of tree-sloths...

Now now deegan, he's actively campaigning. What is really hurting him is
that he has no real concrete CORE values. He alters his message to fit
whoever he's trying to woo that day. Howard Dean would have been a
much much better choice.

Why?

Because the man was like Bush, you knew where he stood, you didn't get
these kind of annoying verbal bullshit you get from Kerry when he tries to
"Rationalize" his 10 different stands on 1 issue over the last 20 years in
the Senate...

[Alex Moon]

Newsweek shows the same thing

link

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush leads his Democrat opponent John Kerry by 11 percentage points according to a poll immediately after the Republican National Convention in New York, Newsweek magazine reported.

Bush is supported by 54 percent of the 1,008 registered voters surveyed Thursday and Friday, compared with 43 percent support for Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator. Independent candidate Ralph Nader polled 3 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points, Newsweek said.

[Alex Moon]

Here's a site with the actual polls used by Newsweek and Time

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

"Suppose the election were being held TODAY and you had the following three choices for president and vice president: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans; John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats; and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, the independent or third party candidates. [Choices rotated.] Who would you vote for?" If none of these: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward Bush and Cheney, the Republicans; Kerry and Edwards, the Democrats; or Nader and Camejo?"

.

Bush/Cheney Kerry/Edwards Nader/Camejo Other (vol.)/Undecided
% % % %
ALL 52 41 3 4
9/3 only 54 38 4 4
9/2 only 49 43 3 5
Republicans 94 4 1 1
Democrats 14 82 1 3
Independents 45 40 9 6
Men 54 39 4 3
Women 50 43 2 5
18-29 45 45 9 1
30-49 56 37 3 4
50 & older 50 44 1 5
Southern white 66 30 1 3
Non-South, white 51 41 4 4
Non-white 34 56 4 6
Military households 58 36 2 4
Non-military 48 43 4 5
.

Trend:
7/29-30/04 42 49 3 6
7/8-9/04 44 47 3 6

[Wicked Pilot]

I don't find it suprising that 14% of Democrats want Bush over Kerry. Is it just me, or is the DNC trying to throw this game?

[Master of Ossus]

I don't find it suprising that 14% of Democrats want Bush over Kerry. Is it just me, or is the DNC trying to throw this game?

Forty-five percent of independents also prefer Bush to Kerry, with only 40% siding with JK. Kerry isn't dead in the water, yet, but it's crunch time and he hasn't been delivering. If he doesn't respond in a big way, he's going to lose the election.

Hand it to the Bushies. Their campaign looks dominant, right now. It's completely controlling every topic of discussion, hammering Kerry incessently, and making every message it says stick. Meanwhile, Kerry's campaign is floundering in the storm. He hasn't made his voice heard, he hasn't acquitted himself well, and he's now in deep trouble come November. I don't know if Kerry can pull it off. Right now, he looks to be in serious trouble and I haven't seen anything out of him that gives me confidence that he's capable of a response.

[Col. Crackpot]

my gut feeling on this is that Kerry is a sacraficial lamb. the true fight will be behind Hillary in 2008.

[The Cleric]

my gut feeling on this is that Kerry is a sacraficial lamb. the true fight will be behind Hillary in 2008.

America is not ready for a woman President. She wouldn't get nearly enough votes.

[Master of Ossus]

my gut feeling on this is that Kerry is a sacraficial lamb. the true fight will be behind Hillary in 2008.

Hilary would have to be a veritable goddess in order to win enough votes to win the presidency. The fact that she's something... erm... less than that does not bode well for her chances in 2008.

[Stormbringer]

my gut feeling on this is that Kerry is a sacraficial lamb. the true fight will be behind Hillary in 2008.

America is not ready for a woman President.

Go thing Hillary isn't one.

[Patrick Degan]

"Actively campaigning" eh? I suppose you could call the Kerry campaign an active one if the standard of "active" is that of tree-sloths...

Now now deegan, he's actively campaigning. What is really hurting him is
that he has no real concrete CORE values. He alters his message to fit
whoever he's trying to woo that day. Howard Dean would have been a
much much better choice.

Why?

Because the man was like Bush, you knew where he stood, you didn't get
these kind of annoying verbal bullshit you get from Kerry when he tries to
"Rationalize" his 10 different stands on 1 issue over the last 20 years in
the Senate...

That's one of the problems with having a candidate for the White House coming from the Senate. With all the dealmaking they practise, they've gotten too used to equivocating on every topic. And it's clear that the days when Giants occupied that house are long past. Even as it is, if the Kerry campaign were sharper off the mark and less inept than it's shown itself to be, it could have neutralised the "waffle" issue. But it's becoming evident that neither Kerry himself nor anybody on his staff are up to that challenge.

Hand it to the Bushies. Their campaign looks dominant, right now. It's completely controlling every topic of discussion, hammering Kerry incessently, and making every message it says stick. Meanwhile, Kerry's campaign is floundering in the storm. He hasn't made his voice heard, he hasn't acquitted himself well, and he's now in deep trouble come November. I don't know if Kerry can pull it off. Right now, he looks to be in serious trouble and I haven't seen anything out of him that gives me confidence that he's capable of a response.

You can sum it up with one of the prize quotes from the movie Patton: "Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser." Anybody who looks like a loser to the public automatically is one and there is no convincing them otherwise. And right now, Kerry is looking like a loser compared to Bush. You can pretty much predict who is going to win any race for the presidency by seeing three months in advance who looks like the winner on the campaign trail, and the only time a race has been exceptionally close is when there's been a matchup of two really strong candidates (Kennedy v. Nixon 1960), or two weak ones (Gore v. Bush 2000).

[sketerpot]

my gut feeling on this is that Kerry is a sacraficial lamb. the true fight will be behind Hillary in 2008.

America is not ready for a woman President.

Suddenly I get this tingly "nationwide flamewar" feeling. Why isn't America ready for a woman president? If Hillary Clinton ran for president, I just get this feeling that somebody would take the sexists to task, and the idiots would have something to divert them from gay marriage, and we'd all get to have fun flaming everybody. Just looking at that sentence pisses me off. I thought that America had, publicly, gone beyond that?

[The Cleric]

PD: Most things can be explained by quotes from Patton .

sketerpot: While America might publicly claim to be past gender discrimination, in reality, it will be a long time before a woman is voted into office. That aside, Hillary wouldn't be elected anyway. She's too left-wing, extreme liberal. And I've heard that she probably won't be elected to another Senate term by NY, because they all have seen how bad she is as an actual politician.

[Col. Crackpot]

PD: Most things can be explained by quotes from Patton .

sketerpot: While America might publicly claim to be past gender discrimination, in reality, it will be a long time before a woman is voted into office. That aside, Hillary wouldn't be elected anyway. She's too left-wing, extreme liberal. And I've heard that she probably won't be elected to another Senate term by NY, because they all have seen how bad she is as an actual politician.

remember the old Vulcan proverb "Only Nixon could go to China?" Well only a Republican can be the first female President.

[Joe]

I've always been somewhat skeptical of these "Hillary in 2008!" claims. Yes, undoubtedly she WANTS to run that year. But she's the most polarizing figure in the country; I don't know if the Democrats would want to run her.

[Stofsk]

I've always been somewhat skeptical of these "Hillary in 2008!" claims. Yes, undoubtedly she WANTS to run that year. But she's the most polarizing figure in the country; I don't know if the Democrats would want to run her.

Why wouldn't they? It sounds like they could use someone who at least knows where he or she stands.

[Stormbringer]

Why wouldn't they? It sounds like they could use someone who at least knows where he or she stands.

True, but she's a Clinton with out the charm. Not a good idea, especially if they lose this election.

[Uther]

I've always been somewhat skeptical of these "Hillary in 2008!" claims. Yes, undoubtedly she WANTS to run that year. But she's the most polarizing figure in the country; I don't know if the Democrats would want to run her.

Why wouldn't they? It sounds like they could use someone who at least knows where he or she stands.

Cause she'd lose. Haha, just kidding. Well, I think she'd lose as of now but four years is way too far out.

I think a woman could win, just not ol' Hillary.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've always been somewhat skeptical of these "Hillary in 2008!" claims. Yes, undoubtedly she WANTS to run that year. But she's the most polarizing figure in the country; I don't know if the Democrats would want to run her.

They certainly wouldn't, she is simply hated with a passion by far too many people in the country, and that was the case before she'd even become a senator.

[Axis Kast]

Hillary garners a great deal of the female vote, but I do think her victory in New York State had a lot to do with Guliani's decision to leave the race and Lazio's subsequent failure to campaign effectively upstate.

[Durandal]

Hillary garners a great deal of the female vote...

You bet your ass she does. If she ran, Oprah would be on the top of her "Celebrity Endorsements" list. And it's hard to tell from here, because this board is primarily male, but Oprah commands a great deal of influence over women who are most likely to vote.

[LordShaithis]

Let them run Hillary in '08, so she can get fucking pwned by McCain.