Kerry leads Bush in opinion poll

[CanadianChris 0]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

 

Nashua, N.H. — A confident John Kerry vowed Sunday to "send George Bush back to Texas" in the November presidential election as a national opinion poll for the first time showed the Democratic presidential hopeful edging ahead of the Republican President.

 

"I'm here to mark the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency," Mr. Kerry told an overflow crowd packing a New Hampshire high-school gymnasium.

 

The Massachusetts senator has been soaring in the polls against his six rivals in tomorrow's crucial New Hampshire primary since his surprise win last week in the Iowa caucuses, but a survey conducted for Newsweek magazine and published on-line Sunday also showed him leading Mr. Bush on a national basis, 49 per cent to 46 per cent.

 

Although those figures were within the statistical margin of error (plus or minus three percentage points) and the election is still 10 months away, the poll shows that Mr. Bush may in fact be vulnerable, particularly if U.S. soldiers continue to die in Iraq (six were killed this weekend) and if the economy continues to prove itself incapable of producing stable, well-paying jobs for Americans.

 

The Newsweek poll also showed that 52 per cent of Americans are dissatisfied with the country's direction, compared with 43 per cent who are satisfied. And Mr. Bush's approval rating has fallen to a bare 50 per cent from 70 per cent after last spring's campaign in Iraq.

 

At Democratic rallies across the state, the hatred for the Republican administration is palpable, and for many voters, the only concern is to select the candidate they think has the best chance of beating Mr. Bush.

 

"The most important thing is to unseat Bush," said Carl Sherblom, a 63-year-old wetland scientist, as he left a rally for candidate Howard Dean. Like many New Hampshire voters, he spent yesterday "shopping" the different candidates.

 

"I'm actually leaning toward Kerry," he continued. "I think Dean is more to my liking, but the issue is electability."

 

Mr. Dean has slipped drastically since his weak third-place finish in Iowa and his much-maligned concession speech, and most polls now put him a distant second in New Hampshire.

 

One poll conducted over the weekend, by Gallup for CNN-USA Today, showed Mr. Kerry leading among likely primary voters, by 38 to 25 per cent.

 

General Wesley Clark attracted 10-per-cent support, a sharp drop from the 21 per cent he scored in a tracking poll less than a week ago. Senator Joe Lieberman was fourth at 12 per cent, while North Carolina Senator John Edwards lagged at just 9 per cent. (Margin of error: plus or minus four points.)

 

Because many New Hampshire primary voters change their minds at the last minute, polls do not always prove accurate on election day, but Mr. Kerry's lead does appear overwhelming.

 

Although they differ on some issues, all the candidates have been piling criticism on Mr. Bush for war, the growing disparities between rich and poor and Americans' lack of health care.

 

Mr. Dean, a former Vermont senator, has been the most outspoken in his opposition to the Iraq war, but the issue has also been hammered home by other candidates. Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who actually voted for the Iraq war in Congress, accused Mr. Bush yesterday of having perpetrated "an enormous amount of deception" in preparations for the war.

 

"We were misled, not only in intelligence, but misled in the way that the President took us to war," he told Fox News.

 

Gen. Clark also accused the Republicans of exaggerating intelligence reports.

 

"We've damaged the credibility of the presidency. We've damaged our national credibility on this issue of weapons of mass destruction," he said on NBC.

 

There may be an actual race after all. I'll be very interested to see if this news will propel Kerry to victory on Super Tuesday.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This is a little dishonest.

 

The GOP has done no campaigning whatsoever. This is like a football team having the lead b/c their opponent has yet to step onto the field.

[CanadianChris 0]

It's different for a sitting President...the guy's been in office for the last three years. You think people can't form an informed opinion of Bush based on his record?

[NoCalMike 0]

Still way to early. I said it was too early to say Bush would roll over on the competition, and I say it is way too early to say Kerry could beat Bush. Summer will be interesting.

[Guest Ghettoman]

Kerry looks exactly like my dad, only ten years older. It's kind of scary.

 

That's why I'm gonna vote for him, I figure I better do my part making this big joke what it is.

[CanadianChris 0]

I agree that it's early. Still interesting, though, given that most indications have been that Bush would trounce whoever got the nomination. (Which he still may, of course.)

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

[NoCalMike 0]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

[Justice 0]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

Job loss has stopped and the Unemployment rate has slowly but surely started to go down. You can bitch about jobs being outsourced, but there are more appearing. And remember, the current rate doesn't take into account self-employed people and many of the new business starting up, so your claims seriously don't hold water.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

Job loss has stopped and the Unemployment rate has slowly but surely started to go down. You can bitch about jobs being outsourced, but there are more appearing. And remember, the current rate doesn't take into account self-employed people and many of the new business starting up, so your claims seriously don't hold water.

I honestly haven't read about major companies coming back to this country and putting factories. I read about Levi Strauss leaving, and host of others. Where are the real jobs that you can raise a family on? We don't need more 7-11s and Wal-Marts in this country.

 

Trickle Down just doesn't work.

[Justice 0]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

Job loss has stopped and the Unemployment rate has slowly but surely started to go down. You can bitch about jobs being outsourced, but there are more appearing. And remember, the current rate doesn't take into account self-employed people and many of the new business starting up, so your claims seriously don't hold water.

I honestly haven't read about major companies coming back to this country and putting factories. I read about Levi Strauss leaving, and host of others. Where are the real jobs that you can raise a family on? We don't need more 7-11s and Wal-Marts in this country.

 

Trickle Down just doesn't work.

A lot of the new jobs are coming from small, family-owned businesses, start-up businesses, and self-employment. This is why you saw payrolls only increase 1,000 jobs but unemployment go down .2%: the Payroll index does not go to these new and smaller businesses, which is why the unemployment has steadily gone down while there has been slow growth in the Payroll area.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's different for a sitting President...the guy's been in office for the last three years. You think people can't form an informed opinion of Bush based on his record?

Dean had, what, 40% in Iowa two weeks ago?

 

Two weeks of people questioning his record and it dropped to 18.

 

Do you think Kerry's numbers won't PLUMMET the moment HIS record enters the discussion?

-=Mike

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

IMO, everyone but Lieberman/Edwards will get rolled. Lieberman is the most electable Dem there is.

[CanadianChris 0]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

Job loss has stopped and the Unemployment rate has slowly but surely started to go down. You can bitch about jobs being outsourced, but there are more appearing. And remember, the current rate doesn't take into account self-employed people and many of the new business starting up, so your claims seriously don't hold water.

I honestly haven't read about major companies coming back to this country and putting factories. I read about Levi Strauss leaving, and host of others. Where are the real jobs that you can raise a family on? We don't need more 7-11s and Wal-Marts in this country.

 

Trickle Down just doesn't work.

A lot of the new jobs are coming from small, family-owned businesses, start-up businesses, and self-employment. This is why you saw payrolls only increase 1,000 jobs but unemployment go down .2%: the Payroll index does not go to these new and smaller businesses, which is why the unemployment has steadily gone down while there has been slow growth in the Payroll area.

But there's also the fact that employment (and unemployment) went down because more and more people are leaving the labour force. Over half a million Americans stopped either working or looking for work last month alone.

[CanadianChris 0]

It's different for a sitting President...the guy's been in office for the last three years.  You think people can't form an informed opinion of Bush based on his record?

Dean had, what, 40% in Iowa two weeks ago?

 

Two weeks of people questioning his record and it dropped to 18.

 

Do you think Kerry's numbers won't PLUMMET the moment HIS record enters the discussion?

-=Mike

Yeah, but Dean's a nut. Plus, I think a voting record as a senator and a presidential record are two different things.

 

Of course, when Karl Rove decides to take the gloves off and start pulling out the dirty tricks, Kerry's probably sunk.

[Mole 0]

IMO, everyone but Lieberman/Edwards will get rolled. Lieberman is the most electable Dem there is.

Lieberman will not win the primary. And if he wins it, somehow, it won't be able to beat Bush.

 

Even though this sounds horrible, the man is Jewish. There is a lot of people who wouldn't want a Jewish President.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fact: No president has ever lost with either an a) recovering or b) good economy.

Fact: The economy is well under way of recovering...any economist will tell you such, hell, im one

 

Therefore,

 

Unless the economy tanks again, we got 4 more years of shrubbery

well "b)" in your scenario is just outright wrong, and "a)" should really be in the eye of the beholder. If you call production and manufacturing and tech jobs being shipped off to foreign countries at a record amount a "recovering" economy, then I guess so......!?!

Job loss has stopped and the Unemployment rate has slowly but surely started to go down. You can bitch about jobs being outsourced, but there are more appearing. And remember, the current rate doesn't take into account self-employed people and many of the new business starting up, so your claims seriously don't hold water.

I honestly haven't read about major companies coming back to this country and putting factories. I read about Levi Strauss leaving, and host of others. Where are the real jobs that you can raise a family on? We don't need more 7-11s and Wal-Marts in this country.

 

Trickle Down just doesn't work.

A lot of the new jobs are coming from small, family-owned businesses, start-up businesses, and self-employment. This is why you saw payrolls only increase 1,000 jobs but unemployment go down .2%: the Payroll index does not go to these new and smaller businesses, which is why the unemployment has steadily gone down while there has been slow growth in the Payroll area.

But there's also the fact that employment (and unemployment) went down because more and more people are leaving the labour force. Over half a million Americans stopped either working or looking for work last month alone.

This makes no sense.

 

Half a million just left the job market?

 

Unless they RETIRED, they can't just NOT look for work.

 

If this is a talking point the left wishes to use, they are in deep trouble.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

But there's also the fact that employment (and unemployment) went down because more and more people are leaving the labour force. Over half a million Americans stopped either working or looking for work last month alone.

That's a deceptive fact, though. A lot of Senior citizens are in that group that stopped looking as well. Seniors often look for job so they can get more money than just their savings and social security and just for something to do during the day (As some of my former co-workers told me themselves).

[Guest MikeSC]

Lieberman will not win the primary. And if he wins it, somehow, it won't be able to beat Bush.

 

Even though this sounds horrible, the man is Jewish. There is a lot of people who wouldn't want a Jewish President.

His religion is irrelevant. He won't win because he has NO core principles whatsoever.

Yeah, but Dean's a nut. Plus, I think a voting record as a senator and a presidential record are two different things.

No, they really aren't. Your votign record as a Senator shows what you do and do not support.

Of course, when Karl Rove decides to take the gloves off and start pulling out the dirty tricks, Kerry's probably sunk.

Oh, lord, I've never seen a bogeyman like Karl Rove. Why the Dems are terrified of him is beyond me --- but it is laughable. Chris Lehane is WORSE than Rove.

 

Rove won't need to engage in "dirty tricks" --- BTW, what WOULD a dirty trick be? Releasing a DUI arrest report from 1976 a week before the general election?

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

His religion is irrelevant. He won't win because he has NO core principles whatsoever.

What do you mean by this, Mike? Lieberman is campaigning on the fact that unlike the other Dems he's stuck to his positions and because he is the most moderate, Bush is the most afraid of running against him.

From the beginning he's been strong on defense, for the war on Iraq/terror, has supported middle class tax cuts and embraces his religion and supports a faith based initiative to help social problems. So he matches what I feel are the best qualities of Bush, yet exheeds him on the enviornment and social positions like gun control and women's right to choose.

If anything Clark is the one with no core principals. Lieberman is a man of principles, it's just some happen to be similar to those of the president but instead of embracing that as a startegy to win, the party is looking to go in the opposite direction.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh, lord, I've never seen a bogeyman like Karl Rove. Why the Dems are terrified of him is beyond me --- but it is laughable. Chris Lehane is WORSE than Rove.

 

Rove won't need to engage in "dirty tricks" --- BTW, what WOULD a dirty trick be? Releasing a DUI arrest report from 1976 a week before the general election?

 

I'd agree that Lehane is horribly terrible, but it's close. Rove has an uncanny ability to use race/moral issues against his opponents, even if they're particularly irrelevant. Also, it's widely believed that Rove propogated the Gore "internet" meme and a few others in 2000, not to mention the Cleland "bin Laden" ad campaign.

 

By the way, putting emphasis on this sort of thing would constitute a dirty trick.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

...women's right to choose...

Despite what some of you may think, abortion is not my litmus test, but Lieberman completely flip-flopped on this issue for the 2000 Election, even though his website says otherwise.

[Styles 0]

...women's right to choose...

Despite what some of you may think, abortion is not my litmus test, but Lieberman completely flip-flopped on this issue for the 2000 Election, even though his website says otherwise.

Right, me neither but when given a choice...

[NYU 0]

Lieberman will not win the primary. And if he wins it, somehow, it won't be able to beat Bush.

 

Even though this sounds horrible, the man is Jewish. There is a lot of people who wouldn't want a Jewish President.

His religion is irrelevant. He won't win because he has NO core principles whatsoever.

His religion is definitely not irrelevant. Many people strictly will not vote for him based on:

 

a) He's jewish

 

b) One day out of seven, he won't be able to work.

 

It's sad that much of the country is like this, but it is. Look past California and the East Coast.....you now have southern and central America, where race, religion, and even sex means a LOT.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Lieberman doesn't stand a chance because.........

- He doesn't tilt far enough to the left to really energize the voting base to come out and vote for him in the primaries. The primaries usually bring out the more extreme crowd (as they have stronger convictions) than the moderates who stay home. A good example of this was in the 2002 California governor Republican primary. The real conservatives came out in droves and we chose Bill Simon instead of the favored, and centrist,, Dick Rierdon.

- If you like Lieberman because of his stance on the war, then why not just stick with Bush? It's not like Bush is an out of control right winger or anything.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Lieberman doesn't stand a chance because.........

- He doesn't tilt far enough to the left to really energize the voting base to come out and vote for him in the primaries. The primaries usually bring out the more extreme crowd (as they have stronger convictions) than the moderates who stay home. A good example of this was in the 2002 California governor Republican primary. The real conservatives came out in droves and we chose Bill Simon instead of the favored, and centrist,, Dick Rierdon.

- If you like Lieberman because of his stance on the war, then why not just stick with Bush? It's not like Bush is an out of control right winger or anything.

Okay, but Bill Simon was crushed by Gray f'n Davis, who was then recalled and replaced by Schwarzenegger, the moderate.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Lieberman doesn't stand a chance because.........

- He doesn't tilt far enough to the left to really energize the voting base to come out and vote for him in the primaries.  The primaries usually bring out the more extreme crowd (as they have stronger convictions) than the moderates who stay home.  A good example of this was in the 2002 California governor Republican primary.  The real conservatives came out in droves and we chose Bill Simon instead of the favored, and centrist,, Dick Rierdon. 

- If you like Lieberman because of his stance on the war, then why not just stick with Bush?  It's not like Bush is an out of control right winger or anything.

Okay, but Bill Simon was crushed by Gray f'n Davis, who was then recalled and replaced by Schwarzenegger, the moderate.

Yeah, so? My point is that primaries bring out the people that lean politically further to the left and the right. Dick Reiderden WOULD have beaten Gray Davis, but the moderate Republicans stayed home in 2002 and thus Simon got the nomination.

 

Liberman would give Bush a run for his money if they went head to head, but Lieberman will never make it out of the primaries because the far left wing of the Democratic party is more energized than the moderates. Hence, the initial love for Howie Dean.

 

If Lieberman does however make a comeback, it'll be in March when the national coverage picks up and the moderates start paying stronger attention to the election coverage. For now though, the "Hate Bush crowd" reigns supreme.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Yeah, so?

If unelectable candidates always win primaries, how is anyone elected?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Yeah, so?

If unelectable candidates always win primaries, how is anyone elected?

Unelectablae candidates don't always come out of the primaries. Bush beat the more moderate McCain and still beat Gore. I'm just talking about why Lieberman doesn't stand a chance in this current environment. The Dems have 6+ guys to choose from, they've had to sit through 3+ years of torture with George Bush. Do you really think that, in these early goings of the nomination process, that the guy MOST like Bush (Lieberman) is going to fair well among the anrgy left?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Lieberman will not win the primary. And if he wins it, somehow, it won't be able to beat Bush.

 

Even though this sounds horrible, the man is Jewish. There is a lot of people who wouldn't want a Jewish President.

His religion is irrelevant. He won't win because he has NO core principles whatsoever.

His religion is definitely not irrelevant. Many people strictly will not vote for him based on:

 

a) He's jewish

 

b) One day out of seven, he won't be able to work.

 

It's sad that much of the country is like this, but it is. Look past California and the East Coast.....you now have southern and central America, where race, religion, and even sex means a LOT.

I'm in the Midwest, or central America as you call it, and I would accept a Jewish President.

 

I think the reason some may have reservations about Lieberman is that it would connect us to the Israel side of the Israel/Palestine crisis closer than ever, and a lot of people want us to be neutral. Personally I support the Israelis but that's a topic for another day.

 

Oh yeah and a lot of ignorant people inexplicably hate the Jews. That works against him too.