Bush's Defeat: It's in the Double Digits, Now

Too preliminary to be taken into account.

Bush has'nt even started his campaign.

It is all about building up the momentum at the right time and being able to carry it through.
 
Bush more than likely planned it this way. He's getting all of the unpopular actions done in 2003 and early 2004...in effect planning to "lose" the 2003/early 2004 elections, which, unfortunately for the Democrats, don't exist.

Then, with that out of the way, the economy improving, and Osama being pulled out of a hat (or Pakistan, or both), he'll be virtually unstopable.
 
On the other hand, that dumb comment about pulling nearly 3 million jobs out of a hat could potentially be damaging. Let's hope the Democrats take his dumb comments and give them some serious air time.

As for this poll...it is still too early to make a clear prediction. Wait until the summer, at least, right around the Democratic party convention, which is in July.
 
Kerry has no chance of beating him, but Edwards might.

Edwards is in a good spot. He's more centrist that Kerry. Remember Clinton winning the nomination from a different tired old guy?
 
I prefer Edwards over Kerry anyway. But Kerry over Bush. I wonder how many people feel the same way.
 
I don't know, maybe Kerry has some kind of a chance.

I just really can't imagine looking at the guy and thinking, "I'm going to vote for John Kerry and feel good about it."

I don't know who would prefer him over Edwards.
 
And in January Dean had the nomination with no competition. Polls mean nothing.
 
Very true, Speedo.

Still, people like to vote for the winner and when they see that the democrat, whoever it is, is leading in the polls they will tend to vote for him as well. At least that's how it works in the Netherlands, unfortunately. :rolleyes: In this case I very much hope it works the same way. ;)

By the way, Toasty, why do you have Bush as avatar? :rolleyes:
 
I don't think this poll is reliable at all. The double digit support only includes about 500 people of the 1000 polled, dubbed as likely voters. (Apparently Bush leads in unlikely voters.) How can 500 'random' people represent millions of Nov. voters? The poll questions aren't provided but several other questions are in the article. You can't ask how the President's Nat. Guard controversy and John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam would effect your decision without skewing the outcome.
 
As stated above polls, mean absolutely nothing at this point. Edwards and Kerry have been campaigning for the nomination, they have been battling each other, as well as Bush. Bush has not even started campaigning yet. And let us consider how long away the election is in the States . . .

They do not mean a thing, but I just want Edwards to win. Come on, you can do it!!!
 
Why don't we just lock up Terry McAuliffe and Karl Rove in a room and... ummmm... I can't think of anything that would make me want to let one of them out... :p
 
Mondale was ahead of Reagan at this time too and look how that election turned out. Speedo is right, the only poll that matters is the one in early November...
 
Like it has been said, polls mean nothing.

In a related matter...

I was wondering something yesterday, if the Democrats do win will all these 'Patriotic Americans' who keep banging on about loyalty to their country still continue doing so? Or in reality are they really just patriotic towards the republican party?
 
Top Bottom