Nicholas_J (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-07-04 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. Not just Kerry's record
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 12:49 AM by Nicholas_J
No incumbent in the last 60 years has had an opponent who has been so close to him in the polls as Kerry is to Bush. Not even Reagan came as close to Carter during the 80 campaign and in fact lagged behind Carter in most polls by between 10 and 20 percent, closer to 20 percent most of the time until the last few weeks of the campaign.
The fact that Kerry has been leading Bush in 36 poll in 25 states over the last three weeks, while Bush has led in only 24 of those polls is an extremely bad sign for Bush. At this point, Bush should be leading in a majority of the poll in the states, but most of the states in which he is leading are clearly Republican leaning, while Kerry is leading in a far greater number of consecutive polls in states that are in play, and has massive leads in states that were very close in 2000. In Michigan. the latest polls hav Kerry with a 10 point lead, Minniesota, 12 points. In only one recent poll does Bush beat Kerry in Florida, and in polls taken in the 4 days since that poll Kerry is at a dead hear with Bush in the ARG 45 % Kerry, 44 Bush, but in another poll taken thins weekend Kerry is 6 points ahead of Bush, (Schroth and Associates) which has Kerry at 49 percent, and Bush at 43 percent.
From a historical perspective, Bush is in serious trouble and the fact that his attempts to try to define Kerry, using all of the ammunition against Kerry available this early in the campaign have had little effect on the polls in most of the states in which Bush is airling them leaves Bush with little ammunition too attack Kerry with when it counts, in the last month of the campaign. Kerry is a master of political timing. He didnt pull out the big guns during the primary process until the actual voting was going on. And the results were rather sucessful, wouldnt you say?
Kerry is not going to openly begin to attack Bush in Iraq until it is seen that the coalition is failing dismally, and that the specter of a Vietnam like quagmire begins to become apparent. The recent events in Iraq are beginning to appear to involve a great deal more people than Al Sadr's militia, as Sunni's are beginning to become involved and join them, and insurgent attacks are beginning to occur in Kirkuk, in the Kurdish dominated north.
Only a fool attacks before he sees the lay of the land, and Kerry is simply no fool To attack Bush on Iraq before the anticipated date of turnover of control would be poor strategy indeed. This is only the beginning of an insurgency. The events of the last few days are the results of smaller and less co-ordinated attacks earlier this year, and it is more likely that they will increase, rather than decrease, and that the Bush Administration will be calling for increasing military presence in Iraq by the mid summer, not decreasing it. Then Kerry can clearly lay out an attack on the obvious lack of exit strategy on the part of the Bush Administration.
This can all be tied in with the Bush Administrations tendency to support democratic regimes that have not been elected by the people of the nations under consideration. First placing a hand picked government in Iraq, thne supporting an unelected government in Haiti.
In fact, as of the most recent data posted today of electoral votes, Kerry has now passed Bush in the electoral vote count coming around from BUsh's one point lead last week, to Kerry now having three more electoral votes than Bush with Bush at 193 electoral votes, Kerry at 196.
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htmAgain, something so historaically unheard of as to be considered a massive indication that Kerry was easily the best candidate the Democratic Party could have selected, as Kerry is way ahead in statates which both Edwards and Clark had some of their poorest showings. particularly in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest.