ok, so now that bush is at record lows. where are the polls

showing bush and kerry tied. come on, I know they are around here some where, because even if kerry stays even he's got to have a 5 or 6 point lead by now.

Wolfie Blitzer, too.

This goes to the heart of the problem with the DLC's tactics. They have so tainted the name of Democrats that even if people cannot stand George they cannot bring themself to vote for a Dem. They will stay home instead. This works to our benefit but it would be so much better if our candidates were trusted instead of seen as dishonest vote chasers.

Historically, this has been a two step process. First people decide that they don't like the incumbent. Then they look to see if the challenger is acceptable to them. Wait a couple of months to when more people are paying attention to the election.

..is a sure election loser. I wish that bunch of conservative old farts would get their fat arses dislodged from the seats of power within the party. They've done nothing but suck the life out of the party and lose elections.

What's needed are grassroots organizing and speaking to the concerns of working people, not whoring after corporate contributions and the yuppie vote.

The DLC is incapable of either. They need to GO. Send them over to Bush.

the election. I don't support the DLC but we can't afford to bash any Dems right now(Except Zell Miller!)You have the right to express your opinion but I am saying it hurts us.We are preceived as "dishonest vote chasers" because the Bushco media has presented us that way. And Dems buying into it by putting the blame on the DLC validate their position.

And the consistant theme (and this is before the campaign got started) is that they simply do not trust the Dems. The repuke strategy of targetting Kerry as indecisive wouldn't work if they didn't think there was something there to appeal to the moderate voters.

Watch the polls. Bush continues to take a beating and Kerry gets no ground from it. This is not Kerry bashing. This is simply realising the nature of the battle before us.

When asked about why they vote for Bush even when they do not agree with his positions the overwhelming majority of people say they trust him. Its that simple. Bush is a lying sack of "insert your explitive here" but the repukes have mastered the art of obsfuscation and the spin.

Kerry the man and Kerry the campaigner are two different people. Perhaps its because lying comes easier to the right then it does to the left. But the taint of trying to appear to be something we aren't is very apparent to the center and the right. Dems trying to run on republican platforms simply tells people that we have no ideals. It tells them we cannot be trusted. We will tell the people what they want to hear and then when in office we will do whatever we want.

Its even in the tactic. First we gotta win the election and then we can make a change. Right there is the lie in our party. People hear that and know that we are just campaigning to win. Our campaign has nothing to do with what we represent. They can't even be sure what we represent any more. They feel much safer with the republicans becaue they do not percieve them as saying things just to win votes (whether this is true or not is an entirely different question).

You cannot lead people by following them. We have to have our candidates stand up and clearly spell out what they stand for and then stand by it. Anything less and the moderates will simply reject us and we will slide further to the right in order to try to catch them again. Its a doomed strategy that kills the party and the country by handing the field of death (look up Art of War) to the republicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

has been this way for a few days...Kerry was up 2 or 3 points for awhile, but all the good news coming from Iraq seems to have taken him down again. lol.

man give me a break.

Found elsewhere:

Just who is the "Rassmussen" of Rasmussen Polls? It's Scott Rasmussen,
co-founder of ESPN sports channel and devoted to right-wing causes. He's a commentator who has appeared regularly on Fox News. What's more, he is--or was--a contributor for Farah's conservative ass-kissing rag, WorldNetDaily. A staunch pusher for Social Security "reform", Rasmussen has an unblemished record as a supporter of Bush and his administration's agendas. As a matter of fact,
Rasmussen has been called "the Republican Pollster" by no less an authority than The ultra conservative National Review. As one commentator has put it:

"Rasmussen just ran a whiney article putting down Zogby International because they had a poll stating John Kerry has the best chance of winning. Zogby details his reasoning, but it's non-partisan, so Rasmussen is refuting it. Scott Rasmussen wrote a piece called GOP Nation in which he rambles endlessly on why Republicans will rule the world for the next century. Rasmussen's polls are good for two things. They pump up the Republican's numbers he's working for, or better yet, they make perfect cat box liners. He's a phony."

Rassmussen disputing Zogby? When was the last time a "non-partisan" polling outfit went on record disputing the findings of another?

So what have we got here...a truly non-partisan pollster (the only kind worth anything) or a repug shill on the order of the notorious Frank Luntz, known as The Republican Pollster Boy.

:eyes:

polls. Watch as the percent of Republican likely voters continues to grow. Before you know it there will have to be 75% Repuke "Likely Voters" and 25% Democrat "Likely Voters" just to keep the polls at 50-50.