The race right now

[A18]

Doesn't matter if Kerry's down big in the polls.

I expect a lot would switch to Nader, and some of the less hardcore lefties would stay home (potentially helping the GOP in congressional races).

I think when it's all over, you'll see Bush win with about a 10-point lead like his father.

[Pollwatch99]

I think Bush is still ahead but not by much (no more than 3-4 points), but if the cheat sheet turns out to be signifcant (and I sure hope not) Bush could open up a lead again.

Foxnews reported today that this was a pen( for all who think it is republican TV).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Doesn't matter if Kerry's down big in the polls.

I expect a lot would switch to Nader, and some of the less hardcore lefties would stay home (potentially helping the GOP in congressional races).

I think when it's all over, you'll see Bush win with about a 10-point lead like his father.

Yea, a ten point lead over the 3rd party guy in his re-election bid.....

No but seriously.  10 points?  Based on what?  Iraq?  The economy?  Healthcare?  Do you think people are stupid enough to believe Kerry being president would increase the chances of a terrorist attack, like those scumbags care who our president is, or that Kerry would completely eliminate our security measures?  No one is winning by more than 5 pending a seriously huge event.  We are an equally polarized nation. 

[Rococo4]

Bush up now 4 to 5.

I really feel sorry for Team Kerry.

First, they'll be compared to the Gore effort in 2000, which was technically brilliant.  Unfortunately, most Dems don't appreciate just how good a job Team Gore did in 2000 (interestingly, the Republicans have more respect for the job done by Team Gore than the Dems do).

Second, the demographics have continued to slide in favor of the Republicans.  If Bush carried al the same states in 2004 as he did in 2000, he would win by a larger margin in the electoral college than he did in 2000.

Third, all the things that the Democrats had anticipated as working in their favor have flopped:

a.) The economy (especially unemployment) has pretty consistently impoved over the last two quarters.

b.) Since the installation of the new Iraqi government, things have significantly improved in Iraq.

c.) The 'war hero' hype for Kerry has completely bombed.

d.) The belief that somehow the debates would suddently change the dynamics of the elections also (as of the first debate) seems to have fizzled.

e.) The forged papers fiasco at CBS has put the liberal media on a short leash for their planned attack on George Bush.

f.) The 527s that the Democrats counted on to make up for their deficiencies have (so far) bombed.

The question becomes, what have they got left?

The old standby of scaring seniors over social security doesn't work anymore.  After all, it was Bush who pushed through prescription drug benefits.

The 'racism' angle doesn't work anymore either.  Remember that several of the most notable Bush administration appointees are black.

Kerry cann't even scare the Jewish vote, which sees Bush as more favorable to their interests than Kerry.

Gun control only backfires for the Democrats (pun intended).

If Kerry raises the abortion issue, the Bush people are ready to point out his support for partial birth abortion and his opposition to Laura's law.

With Michigan being seriously contested, Kerry cann't push his CAFE standards approach (which would probably increase sales of Japanese/Korean vehicles and decrease sales of American made vehicles, especially SUVs).

Kerry cann't push his approach to crime, as he opposes capital punishment (remember Dukakis).

Kerry cann't say to much about the budget deficit as he proposes to spend more than Bush and proposes tax increases to boot (remember Mondale).

Kerry cann't push 'likability' or 'trustworthyness' as the public considers Bush both more likeable and more trustworthy.

I agree with you except for C about things going better in Iraq, Carl.  I also somewhat question Michigan, but your assement is good.

[A18]

HockeyDude,

In this 50-50 nation, all you need to snatch away 2% from your opponent. That has a subliminal effect on undecideds who want to be with the winner and blah blah blah and may even get you 3%. So by pushing for 1 or 2 % of the vote, you can end up with a 4-6 point lead.

Hardcore leftiest/righties supporting your opponent, seeing that he'll lose, switch their votes to a third party candidate. That's an 8 point lead.

Some voters, mostly of your opponent (I don't think the winner's supporters will stay home, even if it's clear he'll win) stay home.

Lastly, undecideds tend to go with the safe choice in an incumbant election. That's a healthy 8-11 point win.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

HockeyDude,

In this 50-50 nation, all you need to snatch away 2% from your opponent. That has a subliminal effect on undecideds who want to be with the winner and blah blah blah and may even get you 3%. So by pushing for 1 or 2 % of the vote, you can end up with a 4-6 point lead.

Hardcore leftiest/righties supporting your opponent, seeing that he'll lose, switch their votes to a third party candidate. That's an 8 point lead.

Some voters, mostly of your opponent (I don't think the winner's supporters will stay home, even if it's clear he'll win) stay home.

Lastly, undecideds tend to go with the safe choice in an incumbant election. That's a healthy 8-11 point win.

Exactly, a lot has to happen, it's HIGHLY unlikely.  And even if you get a couple of points from the other side, you're never going to get 100% from your side either. 

[agcatter]

Currently, I say Bush by three - about a point bump for Kerry.

[A18]

But your opponent won't get 100% either, so it's a wash

Just get 2%, and the rest of the stuff I described can happen pretty easily.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bush up now 4 to 5.

I really feel sorry for Team Kerry.

First, they'll be compared to the Gore effort in 2000, which was technically brilliant.  Unfortunately, most Dems don't appreciate just how good a job Team Gore did in 2000 (interestingly, the Republicans have more respect for the job done by Team Gore than the Dems do).

Second, the demographics have continued to slide in favor of the Republicans.  If Bush carried al the same states in 2004 as he did in 2000, he would win by a larger margin in the electoral college than he did in 2000.

Third, all the things that the Democrats had anticipated as working in their favor have flopped:

a.) The economy (especially unemployment) has pretty consistently impoved over the last two quarters.

b.) Since the installation of the new Iraqi government, things have significantly improved in Iraq.

c.) The 'war hero' hype for Kerry has completely bombed.

d.) The belief that somehow the debates would suddently change the dynamics of the elections also (as of the first debate) seems to have fizzled.

e.) The forged papers fiasco at CBS has put the liberal media on a short leash for their planned attack on George Bush.

f.) The 527s that the Democrats counted on to make up for their deficiencies have (so far) bombed.

The question becomes, what have they got left?

The old standby of scaring seniors over social security doesn't work anymore.  After all, it was Bush who pushed through prescription drug benefits.

The 'racism' angle doesn't work anymore either.  Remember that several of the most notable Bush administration appointees are black.

Kerry cann't even scare the Jewish vote, which sees Bush as more favorable to their interests than Kerry.

Gun control only backfires for the Democrats (pun intended).

If Kerry raises the abortion issue, the Bush people are ready to point out his support for partial birth abortion and his opposition to Laura's law.

With Michigan being seriously contested, Kerry cann't push his CAFE standards approach (which would probably increase sales of Japanese/Korean vehicles and decrease sales of American made vehicles, especially SUVs).

Kerry cann't push his approach to crime, as he opposes capital punishment (remember Dukakis).

Kerry cann't say to much about the budget deficit as he proposes to spend more than Bush and proposes tax increases to boot (remember Mondale).

Kerry cann't push 'likability' or 'trustworthyness' as the public considers Bush both more likeable and more trustworthy.

I agree with you except for C about things going better in Iraq, Carl.  I also somewhat question Michigan, but your assement is good.

Thanks for the kind words.

One of the problems with understanding conflicts in which the United States is involved is that the liberal media is rooting for the enemy.

Hence the report any 'sucess' for the opposition and squelch information reflecting American victories.

The liberal media and American opponents realize that they only hope they have to win is to portray the news in a way to try to convince the American public that the opposition will win.

Remember that the majority of Iraq's population is shiite, and Sadr jr. was never able to raise much of a rebellion.  When he tried armed conflict he was badly beaten.

The Kurds have long been happy to have Hussein gone.

The big development has been in the middle of Iraq where the Sunnis predominate.  Previously there was a three-fold alliance opposing the Americans there consisting of the local warlords, the remnants of Hussein's Fedayeen and the foreign terrorists. 

Nobody likes the Fedayeen (who have largely survived because of their access to stockpiled weapons), and the foreign terrorists have really ticked off the locals.

The Iraqi government has largely made peace with the local warlords and has finally assembled a reasonbly trained and competent (by Iraqi standards) armed force which is winning the conflict against the Fedayeen-foreign terrorist alliance.

The foreign terrorists are engaged in a campaign of ineffectual terrorism which is angering the locals (killing children isn't really too popular anywhere).

Further, the stockpiles of weapons which the fedayeen have used are drying up.

The locals are providing intelligence to the newly effective Iraqi government.

[Rococo4]

Carl

That all may be true, but because of the way things are being portrayed, many do not think Iraq is even staying the same, they feel it is getting worse.  Everything I hear and read makes me feel that way, even though that is what I know the media wants me to think.

[12th Doctor]

Bush +2%-3%

I think he has lost a lot of momentum just in the past few days.  Unfortunatly, this thing is far from over.

[JNB]

If it's not close, I think a lot of Kerry voters may stay home.

What?!  Most solid Kerry voters despise Bush!  For what reason would they stay home other than Phillip wants Bush to win?  Couldn't you also just say for a Bush supporter "Oh Bush is going to win, might as well just stay home" 

And you think undecided will break 70-30 for Bush?

Seriously, what is this Bush-happy fantasy land you are living in? 

   Most so called conservatives are in a fishbowl, fed by slected sources of news, as I have mentioned probably at least a 100 times on this board. Having undecideds break for the incumbent in most elections simpily is not reality. Even in the 72 and 84 blowout elections, undecideds in the last week broke slightly for the challenger.

  Here are more recent examples of closer election. In 80, undecideds broke very heavily for Reagan in the last week,  by a 2-1 margin. The polls I saw a week before the election had Reagan head of Carter by somthing like a 47-45 margin. In 92, many polls the week before election showed Bush behind Clinton by 40-42%, as it was, Bush ended up with 37%, and the undeideds broke for Clinton and Perot. In 96, Dole was behind Clinton by 15 to 20%, with polls shaping up 50% for Clinton, 5% for Perot and 30% for Dole, as it was, almost all the undecideds broke for Dole and Perot.

[A18]

There was a debate that last week.

[JNB]

Carl

That all may be true, but because of the way things are being portrayed, many do not think Iraq is even staying the same, they feel it is getting worse.  Everything I hear and read makes me feel that way, even though that is what I know the media wants me to think.

  Carl is good at repeating talking points. The problem with Iraq is much the same as the problems with Vietnam were, and that is  the difficulty in telling who friend or foe is. Combine that with the fact that like Yugoslavia, Iraq is a Post WWI construct that combined different regions and ethnic groups together makes stability without a brutal dictator difficult, as one could see what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died in 1980.

   Iraq is probably headed towrds a civil war with the 3 main ethnic/religous groups involved, and weapons will allways be avilable because the manpower required to close the borders is not avilable.

[A18]

Problem with Vietnam: Idiots at home lost the will to win the war, even though we never lost a battle

Yes, Iraq does sound a lot like Vietnam. And Kerry's just the man to turn it into one.

[Smash255]

Bush up now 4 to 5.

I really feel sorry for Team Kerry.

First, they'll be compared to the Gore effort in 2000, which was technically brilliant.  Unfortunately, most Dems don't appreciate just how good a job Team Gore did in 2000 (interestingly, the Republicans have more respect for the job done by Team Gore than the Dems do).

Second, the demographics have continued to slide in favor of the Republicans.  If Bush carried al the same states in 2004 as he did in 2000, he would win by a larger margin in the electoral college than he did in 2000.

Third, all the things that the Democrats had anticipated as working in their favor have flopped:

a.) The economy (especially unemployment) has pretty consistently impoved over the last two quarters.

b.) Since the installation of the new Iraqi government, things have significantly improved in Iraq.

c.) The 'war hero' hype for Kerry has completely bombed.

d.) The belief that somehow the debates would suddently change the dynamics of the elections also (as of the first debate) seems to have fizzled.

e.) The forged papers fiasco at CBS has put the liberal media on a short leash for their planned attack on George Bush.

f.) The 527s that the Democrats counted on to make up for their deficiencies have (so far) bombed.

The question becomes, what have they got left?

The old standby of scaring seniors over social security doesn't work anymore.  After all, it was Bush who pushed through prescription drug benefits.

The 'racism' angle doesn't work anymore either.  Remember that several of the most notable Bush administration appointees are black.

Kerry cann't even scare the Jewish vote, which sees Bush as more favorable to their interests than Kerry.

Gun control only backfires for the Democrats (pun intended).

If Kerry raises the abortion issue, the Bush people are ready to point out his support for partial birth abortion and his opposition to Laura's law.

With Michigan being seriously contested, Kerry cann't push his CAFE standards approach (which would probably increase sales of Japanese/Korean vehicles and decrease sales of American made vehicles, especially SUVs).

Kerry cann't push his approach to crime, as he opposes capital punishment (remember Dukakis).

Kerry cann't say to much about the budget deficit as he proposes to spend more than Bush and proposes tax increases to boot (remember Mondale).

Kerry cann't push 'likability' or 'trustworthyness' as the public considers Bush both more likeable and more trustworthy.

I agree with you except for C about things going better in Iraq, Carl.  I also somewhat question Michigan, but your assement is good.

Thanks for the kind words.

One of the problems with understanding conflicts in which the United States is involved is that the liberal media is rooting for the enemy.

Hence the report any 'sucess' for the opposition and squelch information reflecting American victories.

The liberal media and American opponents realize that they only hope they have to win is to portray the news in a way to try to convince the American public that the opposition will win.

Remember that the majority of Iraq's population is shiite, and Sadr jr. was never able to raise much of a rebellion.  When he tried armed conflict he was badly beaten.

The Kurds have long been happy to have Hussein gone.

The big development has been in the middle of Iraq where the Sunnis predominate.  Previously there was a three-fold alliance opposing the Americans there consisting of the local warlords, the remnants of Hussein's Fedayeen and the foreign terrorists. 

Nobody likes the Fedayeen (who have largely survived because of their access to stockpiled weapons), and the foreign terrorists have really ticked off the locals.

The Iraqi government has largely made peace with the local warlords and has finally assembled a reasonbly trained and competent (by Iraqi standards) armed force which is winning the conflict against the Fedayeen-foreign terrorist alliance.

The foreign terrorists are engaged in a campaign of ineffectual terrorism which is angering the locals (killing children isn't really too popular anywhere).

Further, the stockpiles of weapons which the fedayeen have used are drying up.

The locals are providing intelligence to the newly effective Iraqi government.

OH PLEASE>  The media is not rooting for the enemy.  Their is no "liberal media".  This is the same media that covered and mentioned how well we were doing when the war started and we went through Iraq quickly in spring of last year.

Is Fox News part of that "liberal media"  Because even they are reporting the violence in Iraq.

various Generals and military commanders have said their has been more violence latley.  Bottom lins is more Americans and Iraqi's have died in the months after the transfer of power than the months before it.  Their are more bombings after than before.  This isn't some "liberal media" conspiracy these are simply facts.  Hell I guess that Intelligence report had liberal bias in it as well, even in its pure text form..........

[CARLHAYDEN]

You are incorrect on several pointgs.

First, the reporters who were 'embedded' with the troops did a good job.  The producers in charge of the old three tv networks were angry as hell at their reporting.  Those reporters were replaced with 'reliable' liberals.

Second, yes there is violence in Iraq, but there has always been (and will probably always be) violence in that part of the world.  The fact of the matter is that the terrorist forces are slowly being strangled and cannot wage an effective campaign.

Third, the transfer of power less than four months ago.  If you check out the statistics, American fatalties are less in that period that before, contrary to you assertion.

Finally, in the last month the Iraqi government has finally gotten its act together and is dealing effectively with the terrorists.

[Smash255]

You are incorrect on several pointgs.

First, the reporters who were 'embedded' with the troops did a good job.  The producers in charge of the old three tv networks were angry as hell at their reporting.  Those reporters were replaced with 'reliable' liberals.

Second, yes there is violence in Iraq, but there has always been (and will probably always be) violence in that part of the world.  The fact of the matter is that the terrorist forces are slowly being strangled and cannot wage an effective campaign.

Third, the transfer of power less than four months ago.  If you check out the statistics, American fatalties are less in that period that before, contrary to you assertion.

Finally, in the last month the Iraqi government has finally gotten its act together and is dealing effectively with the terrorists.

Your conspiracy theories over the coverage is continuing again.  The reason their is more coverage of the vioelence is because their is more violence.  In the immediate aftermath of the transfer of power their was a reduction of violence, but that has not been the case in the past 1-2 months.  I don't have time to dig up the stats now, have to check my fantasy football teams & get to bed so I can get up for work in the morning, but within the past couple months their has been a definate uptick in violence in Iraq and Generals and Commanders in Iraq have even said this

[J. J.]

Bush +2%-3%

I think he has lost a lot of momentum just in the past few days.  Unfortunatly, this thing is far from over.

Yes, Bush has lossed momentum, but Kerry has no momentum either.  Even if this isn't a bounce, Kerry is not catching on.

[JNB]

  Here is the link that has the numbers.

 http://icasualties.org/oif/

  One can see the facts for themselves. The numbers have been getting worse again. One can choose to be a talk radio flunkie, or see facts for themselves. It seems the only conservatives that think for themselves anymore are the Paleo-Conservatives.

[Nym90]

  Here is the link that has the numbers.

 http://icasualties.org/oif/

  One can see the facts for themselves. The numbers have been getting worse again. One can choose to be a talk radio flunkie, or see facts for themselves. It seems the only conservatives that think for themselves anymore are the Paleo-Conservatives.

Excellent chart. As can be seen in the first chart, deaths per day is higher for the period since the government was turned over to Iraq than it was for the period between the end of major combat operations and the government turnover on June 28.

[12th Doctor]

  Here is the link that has the numbers.

 http://icasualties.org/oif/

  One can see the facts for themselves. The numbers have been getting worse again. One can choose to be a talk radio flunkie, or see facts for themselves. It seems the only conservatives that think for themselves anymore are the Paleo-Conservatives.

Excellent chart. As can be seen in the first chart, deaths per day is higher for the period since the government was turned over to Iraq than it was for the period between the end of major combat operations and the government turnover on June 28.

Could this possibly be because the terrorists are trying to force a failure of the government?  Honestly, Eric... think.  Don't just blame Bush.

[Nym90]

  Here is the link that has the numbers.

 http://icasualties.org/oif/

  One can see the facts for themselves. The numbers have been getting worse again. One can choose to be a talk radio flunkie, or see facts for themselves. It seems the only conservatives that think for themselves anymore are the Paleo-Conservatives.

Excellent chart. As can be seen in the first chart, deaths per day is higher for the period since the government was turned over to Iraq than it was for the period between the end of major combat operations and the government turnover on June 28.

Could this possibly be because the terrorists are trying to force a failure of the government?  Honestly, Eric... think.  Don't just blame Bush.

I'm not just blaming Bush. I never said it was his fault, but the numbers still show that this idea that things are getting better is not true. Things have gotten worse since then, and Bush has to acknowledge that first in order to be able to solve the problem.

[Silent Hunter]

Moving back on topic, I'd say Bush is up by 1-2%. The VP debate will have a minor effect depending on who wins. The second debate could push Bush back to a 3-4% lead or even.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I suggest you look a little more carefully at the data.

First, one must seperate hostile from non-hostile fatalities.

Second, one must also distinguish between months in which American forces were actively engaged in seek and destroy operations, from those where they stood down from active operations.

Third, one must distinguish between effective versus ineffective operations.

To be more specific:

In the period March through May of this year, hostile fatalities were 231, with limited effectiveness.  The US largely abandoned the sunni triangle for a while after that period, and Sadr Jr. had largely gotten away with his actions.

In the Period July though September, fatalties were 182 with considerable effectiveness.  Sadr Jr. has essentially given up on armed struggle (his militia was largely destroyed), and the anti-terrorist forces have seized much of the sunni triangle they had ceded to the terrorists just a few months previously.

I realize there is a 'will to lose' among the left which seeks to magnify American loses and minimize gains.

The simple fact is that the terrorists ARE losing in Iraq right now, and the prognosis looks much better than it did just a few months ago.