Gallup: Kerry is Going to Win

As many of you know, the most recent Gallup poll has Bush's job approval down to 46%. The Head of Gallup has stated that no President has EVER been re-elected with numbers that low at this point in his presidency. Although the poll shows Bush 1% ahead of Kerry, Kerry is doing better than any other challenger at this point in the election, including Clinton and Reagan.

We now have the heads of two MAJOR polling organizations, Gallup and Zogby, saying that it's looking more and more like Kerry victory in November!

In more good news, Nader is having a really hard time getting on state ballots, and journalists are saying that he greatly overestimated his grass roots support.

If Gallup says it's 46% then its actually a little lower! Kerry is going to kick shrub's ass. Then we'll have a liberal president.

Nader can go jump in a lake.

Although these days that looks like a flaming ass, wild eyed, crazy liberal!

If Kerry wins, which is doubtful considering all all the rabbits they have yet to pull (Osama, WMD on US, rigged voting, disenfranchisement, etc.), he has much to do, and it is doubtful he will have a Congress with which to do it.

I am beginning to think it is less a question of what if Bush gets another 4 years to how fast and how hard the US will crumble.

no evidence (cited or otherwise)...

please...

Which measure political leanings, rank kerry as a:


John Kerry is a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.

http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=4&a8=2&a9=4&a10=5&a5=5&a6=5&a7=5&a14=4&a15=2&a16=2&a19=5&a17=4&a18=2&a20=1&a11=1&a12=5&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=70&e=33&t=22

On this scale, Kerry was rated as furtther to the left than Ralph Nader, as far to the Left as Dennis Kucinich, where Kucinich was rated as a Populist Leaning Liberal. On the scales Kucinich and Kerry were rated as the two most left leaning candidates running.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. We're in Bushworld, a place that would shock even Orwell and Kafka.

and Bush wins via Diebold, what will happen?

Suppose there are two stolen elections back to back. Will the media do what they did in 2000? What will Kerry do?

Do we just roll over and play dead? Can the people bring suit?

People keep thinking of working within the system... how much longer is that even an option?

Not since 1929 has the Republicans controlled all three branches of government. What saved Roosevelt, and our country, I suspect, was Smedly Butler exposing a plot to take over the country by fascist leaning American businessmen and then WW II.

...show up on November 2 and vote, because the overwhelming majority of Democrats will vote for Kerry. Kerry will win if the up coming election is not rigged by republicans and that means NO UNCERTIFIED VOTING MACHINES ALLOWED. Kerry will win if moderate republicans vote their consciences and hearts. Kerry will win because he can unite this country and give the government back to the people.

states that they are embarking on a $10 Million email campaign in the next couple days.

Let's hit the ten mil in 2 days!! Respond with whatever you can!

to get people to vote absentee if they have diebold machines in their precinct.

Do you have a link for that Gallup prediction?

They want to believe in polls as oracles.

The rest of us have to remain connected to reality -- go out an campaign, and then vote.

The polls are encouraging, but I don't want anything to slacken that fighting **edge**.

Bush is between 3.35 and 3.5 years through his term, for comparison.

The synopses below of Gallup results (which, between the two of them, include every president since Eisenhower, I think) show that there are only three to choose from that were as low as Bush II at this point in their presidency:
- Johnson - in low/mid 40s(second term; only full one)
- Carter - 30s
- Bush I - 30s
(Nixon resigned)

But Johnson didn't run for a second (full) term, so we can't really count him when comparing what it meant to a re-election bid.

So we have Bush I and Carter in their mid 30s. That's only two other presidents in similar (although worse) situations to compare Bush II to. The next highest (winners) are Clinton and Reagan, both in the low-mid 50s (although they were trending upwards, whereas W is trending DOWN DOWN DOWN).

Bush is smack dab in the middle. It is still too early to tell which way his numbers will "break" (although I am optimistic that he'll continue to decline). As someone above points out, put nothing beyond this team in an attempt to win.

So I don't think it's a sure thing unless Bush falls into the mid-low 30s. If that happens, NOTHING they can do will help short of stealing the election (and if they "win" with a 35% or less approval rating, I don't think anyone will buy it).

"'For an incumbent to be at 46% job approval at this point in an election year has historically always spelled defeat' for presidents since 1950, says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17316-2004May11.html, scroll down)

Technically, that's accurate. But as I pointed out above, that's only based on two presidents (Bush I and Carter), and they weren't actually AT 46% (as Newport implies), but well into the 30s.

I do tend to think Bush II will dip into the 30s, and probably lose. But the Gallup statement is not a scientific conclusion, as implied by the original post. It's just a guess based on limited past examples.

Remember the academics with their fomulas for predicting the outcome of the 2000 presidential election? Remember how they predicted that Gore couldn't lose? The fact is, there is a first time for everything. And what Gallup and Zobgy ignore is the fact that Bush and the Republicans have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, that the press hates John Kerry, and that around 45-48% of the electorate will not vote for a Democratic candidate under ANY circumstances.

What could you possibly base that on?

Gore got more than 48% in 2000, WITH Nader pulling 3% nationally. Do you really think any Gore voters are going to switch to Nader and or Bush? Do you really think Dem voters will be less energized and turn out in fewer numbers than in 2000? (I don't think they've ever been MORE energized)

With all due respect, the percent that won't vote for a Dem under any circumstances is limited to the hardcore Repub vote. I'd guess that's only about 30-40%... MAX. Bush got another 10-18% in 2000 b/c of "Clinton fatigue" and "Al Gore invented the internet". Also, many moderates bought the "uniter"/"compassionate conservative" crap; but that horse don't walk anymore.

How many times since LBJ's landslide in 1964 has a Democratic presidential candidate received MORE than 51% of the popular vote? ZERO. No Democratic candidate since LBJ has received more than 51% of the popular vote. No Democratic candidate other than Jimmy Carter in 1976 has received a majority of the popular vote, and Carter barely banaged that. Even Bill Clinton running against a feeble Dole could only muster 49% of the vote. I don't see this 40 year pattern as a mere coincidence. Nearly half the voters seem to be physically incapable of pulling the Democratic lever. And I don't expect things to be any different this year. Frankly, my statement that 45-48% of the voters would never vote for a Democratic presidential candidate is, if anything, an understatement.

Clinton would have gotten about 50% of the Perot vote.

So he would have beaten Bush1:
43% actual
+9.5% Perot
52.5% Total

He would have beaten Dole:
49% actual
+4.5% Perot
53.5% total

That Democratic majority of 52-53% is for real. And we are not even counting the 5 million spoiled votes which are 75-80% democratic.

This would add at least 2% to Clinton. Now we are up to 55%.

Even if Clinton only received 8% of the Perot vote vs. 11% for Bush 1, he still would have won handily.
Same goes for the Dole case.

Face it, Dolstein. The emerging democratic majority emerged in 1992 - and is growing.

The prognostications held, Gore did not loose. The election was stolen by shenanigans in Florida, and a few other states. It came down to Florida however, butterfly ballot, stuffing the military ballot, voter disenfranchisement, suspended recounts, and finally, the US Supreme Court.

The academics did not take into account:

1) the Nader factor (a net to Gore of over 1 million votes)
2) The fact that 5 million mostly democratic votes were spoiled, a net to Gore of 3 million votes.

Lets see how this effects the percentages.

Actual Gore: 51 mm
Nader to Gore: 2 mm
Spoiled votes to Gore: 4 mm
Total Gore: 57 mm (52.2%)


Actual Bush: 50.5 mm
Nader to Bush: .7 mm
Spoiled votes to Bush: 1 mm
Total Bush: 52.2 mm (47.8%)

Adj. Total Votes: 109.2mm

And we haven't even mentioned those mostly minorities and poor who were disenfranchised from voting (at least 100,000 in FL alone, probably 1-2 mm total in the US, again mostly for Gore)

So the academics were right after all.

Keep this kicked, so lurking freepers can expand on their growing ulcers and growing fear!

I want the freeps in psychic misery.

3 weeks before the election. Now is not the time for complacency.

The only thing that really scares me is e-voting.

One of the creators of PNAC, Bill Kristol stated this weekend that it looks more and more like Kerry is going to win in November.

I don't trust anyone on TV. Gallup, and especially Kristol.

They have a bunch of dirty tricks up their fuckin sleeves and they'll pull them out at the most convenient timings. Gen. Mushy of Pakistan probably already has a pretty good idea where bin Laden is. They definetely want Bush to be reelected, so they'll try to release him at a convenient time. The Saudis also want Bush in power, so they'll cut oil prices when the time is right. And of course, those mysterous WMDs could pop up out of nowhere...After all, I'd say it would take a while to manufacture realistic enough WMDs that Iraq had. :tinfoilhat:

I think we have a strong chance of winning this, but it'd be a REAL accomplishment to win in the atmosphere we live in.

will be key in this election, since unlike the last one, people are fired up to go out and fight for or against a candidate. Last time there was a big feeling of 'the lesser of who cares' but now people wlil be more motivated to vote. Since one of the discriminators for finding out if someone is a 'likely voter' or not is whether they answer yes to the question, "Did you vote in the 2000 Presidential election?" Since some of Kerry's supporters are likely to come from people who couldn't be bothered voting last time, that's an indication that registered voters may be more important in these polls than likely voters. It's a long run scenario.

That's the most encouraging difference between 2000 and 2004. The schism in the electorate is solid and it will be pretty much a rerun of 2000. But in 2000 you had hundred of thousands of rabid righties who couldn't stand the sight of Clinton/Gore, while in 2004 it's the opposite case.

The thing to worry about is the enormous money difference -- not only is Bush up by about $180M net, but I assume he'll extend the lead if it looks as though the House may be in play. If the top 5% starts to feel like they may lose their gravy train tax redistribution, they'll push their pony like there's no tomorrow.