Bush leads narrowly in all major polls (3/30)

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
From pollingreport.com:









Granted, it's within the margin of error. But, this is a stunning trend. Kerry was leading Bush by up to 7 points a month ago. This represents a 10 point shift in some cases.



Given the absolute barrage of criticism from Clarke et al, Bush's numbers should be falling. But they're not. Has the GOP ad machine been effective? It seems so. I'm not sure the polls matter at this point in the game, but I am suprised Bush's numbers haven't tanked.



Some pundits have predicted that Kerry may run out of ammo from an attack standpoint. He's been pretty effective with harping on "job losses", but risks "attack fatigue" because he's been saying the same thing for 18 months. Now, I do question if the same will happen to Bush, whose obviously gone negative in response.



BTW, I also don't believe there is true enthusiasm for Kerry, and that the Clintons are going to help torpedo him as the race goes on. Flame away.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    bah.



    it's months before the election. all of this is just crap. any poll until a month from now is worthless, IMO.



    as for the clintons sinking kerry, that would be in hillary's best interest. if kerry's elected, no shot for hillary for another 8 years.
  • Reply 2 of 70
    it may reflect the fact that kerry has gone from being very visible with the primaries in full swing, to being less so.

    but with respect to the way things have been going the last few weeks for president bush, his administration has to be pleased.

    but it is curious isn't it?
  • Reply 3 of 70
    thttht Posts: 3,212member
    What so surprising about it? It's a 50/50 country. If Nader wasn't included, it would be even closer would it not?



    It appears to me that nothing will sway the base support of either candidate. Even with the barrage of bad press for Bush in the last few weeks, the Republican friends I have have not dropped their support. The same goes for Bush's "anti-conservative" economic politics (*), my friends will still vote for Bush even though his actions have betrayed the principles they subscribe too.



    (*) In reality, I agree with BRussell's opinion about the Reagonite economics. The economic policy executed and propogandized by conservatives when they are in power is nothing but campaign economics. They do it because it gets them elected, regardless of the economic reality.
  • Reply 4 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    But, this is a stunning trend.



    Kind of like that 'full blown economic recovery' of a few months back, eh?
  • Reply 5 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    What so surprising about it? It's a 50/50 country. If Nader wasn't included, it would be even closer would it not?



    It appears to me that nothing will sway the base support of either candidate. Even with the barrage of bad press for Bush in the last few weeks, the Republican friends I have have not dropped their support. The same goes for Bush's "anti-conservative" economic politics (*), my friends will still vote for Bush even though his actions have betrayed the principles they subscribe too.



    (*) In reality, I agree with BRussell's opinion about the Reagonite economics. The economic policy executed and propogandized by conservatives when they are in power is nothing but campaign economics. They do it because it gets them elected, regardless of the economic reality.




    I agree about the nation being split. but the pointi s the trend, not the number. After Bush's last few weeks, he should be tanking, but he's not. It's odd. As for economics, I don't agree. I think tax cuts work, and yes...even when they're for the rich. But that's another topic.
  • Reply 6 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    Kind of like that 'full blown economic recovery' of a few months back, eh?



    We are in recovery. There's no question about that. The number that's off is job creation, which does need to improve. You have to look at the overall numbers which are very positive, particularly GDP growth. 4% (plus) growth is very, very strong.
  • Reply 7 of 70
    In that case, Yay!
  • Reply 8 of 70
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I think tax cuts work, and yes...even when they're for the rich. But that's another topic.



    You've fallen for it. They were NOT for the RICH. Tell a lie long enough and people believe it. How can we cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes? To hell with communist class warfare! </loco rant>
  • Reply 9 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    You've fallen for it. They were NOT for the RICH. Tell a lie long enough and people believe it. How can we cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes? To hell with communist class warfare! </loco rant>



    If you are claiming that EGTRRA does not disproportionately benefit the rich, then you either need to retake your junior high math classes or actually find out what EGTRRA entails.



    As for class warfare, what do you think government policies made by the rich that benifit the rich at the expense of the poor are?
  • Reply 10 of 70
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    If you are claiming that EGTRRA does not disproportionately benefit the rich, then you either need to retake your junior high math classes or actually find out what EGTRRA entails.



    As for class warfare, what do you think government policies made by the rich that benifit the rich at the expense of the poor are?




    Hmmm... you pay more taxes, you get more back. Sounds logical to me.

    "Expense of the poor"
  • Reply 11 of 70
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    it proportionally benefits the lower tax brackets.



    quantitatively it benefits the rich. proportionally it doesn't.



    of course, proportional is the only "fair" way to cut taxes.
  • Reply 12 of 70
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I agree about the nation being split. but the pointi s the trend, not the number. After Bush's last few weeks, he should be tanking, but he's not. It's odd. As for economics, I don't agree. I think tax cuts work, and yes...even when they're for the rich. But that's another topic.



    I think it was Bertrand Russell who defined a specialist as "someone who gets to know more and more about less and less until he finally knows everything about nothing".



    Bush (Enron) economics is a parallel, in that the aim is for fewer and fewer people to own more and more, until a tiny percentage of the (global) population own almost everything.



    Un American
  • Reply 13 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    You've fallen for it. They were NOT for the RICH. Tell a lie long enough and people believe it. How can we cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes? To hell with communist class warfare! </loco rant>



    Well...again we're off topic. I know they weren't jus cutt for the rich. I received quite a large benefit from the rate reductions and changes in depreciation law, just to name a few. Tha being said, I agree that we can't cut taxes on those who don't pay them. You're absolutely right.
  • Reply 14 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    I think it was Bertrand Russell who defined a specialist as "someone who gets to know more and more about less and less until he finally knows everything about nothing".



    Bush (Enron) economics is a parallel, in that the aim is for fewer and fewer people to own more and more, until a tiny percentage of the (global) population own almost everything.



    Un American




    Please.
  • Reply 15 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    Hmmm... you pay more taxes, you get more back. Sounds logical to me.

    "Expense of the poor"




    The simple fact is that that those with lower incomes now shoulder a greater proportion of this country's tax burden than before.



    With the surplus that made EGTRRA appear affordable gone, we are faced with two options. Taxes must rise or spending must fall. If public spending falls, those with higher incomes will be better insulated than those with low incomes.



    But SDW is right...this is off topic. If you want to discuss the real world impact of EGTRRA, perhaps another thread should be started.
  • Reply 16 of 70
    It's a good thing Bush leads. It just shows Kerry's pandering to the middle has had an opposite than expected effect just like with the Democrats in 2002.



    www.votenader.org
  • Reply 18 of 70
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    If you are claiming that EGTRRA does not disproportionately benefit the rich, then you either need to retake your junior high math classes or actually find out what EGTRRA entails.



    As for class warfare, what do you think government policies made by the rich that benifit the rich at the expense of the poor are?




    Please now stop twisting words. A disproportionate benefit can only occur when you are already paying a disproportionate amount of taxes.



    We are both carrying weights in our backpacks.



    You have to carry 10 lbs of weight, and I must carry 150 lbs of weight. We decide to let you carry 9 lbs instead of 10 lbs. In am allowed to drop 10 lbs from my weight that I am carrying.



    I got to drop a disproportionate amount of weight compared to you. However I am carrying 15 times more weight than you as well.



    The bottom 50% of income earners pay 4% of federal taxes. Most are already off the tax roles. Lots even get money back with regard to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Credit when they haven't paid in a single dime. You can't get a benefit back when your obligation is zero. Even simple math can understand that.



    Nick
  • Reply 19 of 70
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    The simple fact is that that those with lower incomes now shoulder a greater proportion of this country's tax burden than before.



    With the surplus that made EGTRRA appear affordable gone, we are faced with two options. Taxes must rise or spending must fall. If public spending falls, those with higher incomes will be better insulated than those with low incomes.



    But SDW is right...this is off topic. If you want to discuss the real world impact of EGTRRA, perhaps another thread should be started.




    Off topic, but you're wrong with your first statement. The rich pay a HUGE majority of the taxes.
  • Reply 20 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Off topic, but you're wrong with your first statement. The rich pay a HUGE majority of the taxes.



    Re-read the statement. I did not say that the poor pay the majority of taxes, but that proportion of the tax burden shouldered by the poor (compared to the proportion of the tax burden shouldered by the rich) is now greater than it was.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I got to drop a disproportionate amount of weight compared to you. However I am carrying 15 times more weight than you as well.



    But what if you are easily capeable of carrying 20 times more weight than I, while I can just about manage 9 lbs?



    And who suffers more when the government has less money to spend?
Sign In or Register to comment.