John Kerry leading GWB

Sleipnir

Does he have a real chance despite the amount of cash Bush has to spend on his campaign? He just might. He certainly seems to be pulling ahead.


An opinion poll in the United States has given Democratic challenger John Kerry a significant lead over President George W Bush ahead of the presidential election in November. The Los Angeles Times poll put support for Kerry at 51%, compared to 44% for Mr Bush. When independent candidate Ralph Nader was included in the race, Kerry was leading Bush by 48% to 42%. Almost 60% of those polled also said they believed the US was on the wrong track, the highest level that a Times poll has recorded during the Bush presidency. Just 39% said American was better off because of Bush's policies.

chewy

still a long time to go the administration could easily pull some pr stunts...

an american reporter told me that theres huge unspoken disapproval of bush....in the american society

sceptre

Originally posted by chewy
an american reporter told me that theres huge unspoken disapproval of bush....in the american society

Ah the silent majority. Who can remain silent for all I care if they don't get off their asses and vote in November.

vorbis

still a huge amount of time left. polls at this stage are irrelevant.

mike65

Kerry still has months to blow it!

Mike.

Victor

An incumbent usually is behind in the polls at this stage and will gain later in the campaign, so I'm not sure if 6-7% is enough of a lead.

mike65

The result will almost cetainly depend on who the running mates are...I think the Amercians are less enamoured of Dick Cheney than Dubya.

Mike.

chewy

did i hear talk of mccain...

but the confuses me

whats his deal

radwa

don't be all so stupid. the situation in iraq can only get better. still plenty of time to go! president bush's campaign hasn't even started! all he needs to do is ask whether "do you want kerry running your country ?"

shotamoose

Originally posted by radwa
all he needs to do is ask whether "do you want kerry running your country ?"

Apparently quite a lot of people do.

bonkey

Originally posted by radwa
don't be all so stupid.

Less of the insults please. A look at our charter/guidelines wouldn't go astray.

the situation in iraq can only get better.

So you're admitting that Bush has made it as bad as it can get?

Interesting point of view when you're extolling the guy as the better choice.

president bush's campaign hasn't even started!

Which one? The smear campaign has started, although given Bush's outstanding performance in that department in the last election, its fair to say that he hasn't gotten into full gear yet. Of course, this is only effective when people ignore that htis is the man who promised to change the tone of US politics.

How were you gonna do that Dubya? "Well, I thought that people were just too damned pansy-assed to really fight durty" would seem to be the appropriate answer there, going by his past performance.

all he needs to do is ask whether "do you want kerry running your country ?"

Actually, statistically, with a President running for the second term, the question most frequently asked is "do you want this guy running your country again". It is generally accepted by political analysts concerning the US system that the President running for a second term has to blow it before the second guy even gets a chance.

So before anyone who is actually not going to vote based on pre-formed partisanship asks whether or not Kerry is who they want, they will ask themselves whether or not they want the same guy to remain.

So for Bush to even ask that would be an admission on his own part that he has blown it to the extent that people would need to be asked that question.

But don't let that stop the sycophantic praise. Its quite amusing really.

jc

vorbis

thats assuming a bit much Bonkey. People would generally weigh up the aternative as well as assessing the current incumbent. The current president would want to be outstandingly successful for people to not consider the alternative.

do you want kerry running your country?

is quite valid given how well the mud has stuck to him. As other people have said, Kerry should really be much farther ahead at this stage. Still though its still months to the elections.

Ivan

Ah come on now. Everyone knows people are naturally lazy and well Americans...

They are gonna stick with what they know, in this case Dubya, if he is even semi-way decent.

The fact that they arent, well, that says alot...

vorbis

I was more on about the way that Kerry has been so easily painted as a shifty character. I imagine that even republicans would argue that George Bush says plenty of stupid things and that he can easily be portrayed as a poor president. The startling thing for me is that Kerry has already lost any sheen he had this early in the election campaign. He's the challenger for gods sake! He's supposed to be seen and portrayed as a clean alternative to Bush. Instead he's been pidgeon holed as a very shifty politician.

eoinm

It was always going to be easy for the Republicans to get Kerry. If there is one thing they are good at it's getting rich (check) yankee (check) liberals (check). Clinton had that southern charm going on (and executed a few people for good measure) so he was less of an obvious democrat than Kerry.

Neither side has brought out the heavy artillery yet. The old school dems are silent, and Arnie and the liberal wing of the Reps haven't moved yet either

BlitzKrieg

Since when has the american voting system matter to George Bush?

Seaneh

I will put on a €10 bet right now that Kerry won't even get close to bush.
Old Ralph will take a lot of undecided votes, and The reps. will leave Kerry looking like a fool by the end of september, there is so much drit on the guy he makes Liam Lawlor look like a clean cut young lad.

Magnolia_Fan

Kerry will not win the election...If John McCain was to run I think I'd give him my vote. I'm not anti-Bush but I feel he's made a few mistakes. I think McCain could handle taking over operations in Iraq alot better than John Kerry could. And he probably wouldn't go brown noising the French and Germans for help.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Couple things to remember.

Firstly, it's actually relatively rare for the American people to throw out an incumbent. Reagan had a lot of cold-war related scandals in his first term, and significant policy failures. However, he had excellent communications skills and his opponents couldn't touch the "Teflon president" because he took responsibility for mistakes as often as he did for success.

Secondly, in what Americans perceive as a "war-time situation" it's even less likely that the incumbent loses. Quite a number of my friends simply don't believe in changing presidents in the middle of a policy. The argument is that a radical shift in policy would destabilize the situation even more than it is now.

Thirdly, most Americans see Kerry as a flip-flopper. The fact that he voted for the Iraq war and against the troop supplemental smacks of rampant opportunism to most US citizens. Vote for a policy he now calls wrongful, then opposing funding benefiting troops that have to fight it has frightened a lot of people out of his camp. Also, on the issue of Iraq (the defining point of the election tbh) Kerry's position is little different from Bush.

The only difference was that Kerry said he'd bring the UN and allies into the picture- Bush with the UN resolution and the political process of the handover going relatively smoothly, has stolen enough of Kerry's thunder that the distinction in voters' minds is much more blurred. Except that Bush was in charge during 9/11 and in all seriousness, a half-blind mentally challenged chipmunk with gum disease could have been the first face of sympathy after 9/11 and it would get votes from that. Plus, their positions on Iraq are pratically identical, Kerry has offered less specifics than Bush and no alternative. You can't simply say "Trust me, I'll do the same job better than him"- you have to offer an alternative path- Kerry hasn't done that on the big stage.

The other significant problem with Kerry is that he favors outright protectionism and economic isolation. American business will vote for less of a fortress economy and more of a liberal supply-side economy, one Kerry strongly dislikes.

He's also seen as terribly weak on national security and counterterrorism issues, he barely touched them as a senator. Bush walked with Guliani through the rubble of ground zero.

Republican campaigners realize this. Else why delay the Republican convention until exactly a month before the 9/11 anniversary? Or for that matter, why hold the convention in New York City?

The Abu Ghraib scandal is basically a footnote in US coverage right now, President Reagan's death and state funeral has wiped Iraq off the radar. US casualties in May have been extremely light compared to April. The polls are starting to show that people believe Bush can turn Iraq around, and that the international community is behind him. Republicans point to the unanimous UNSC vote as a pragmatic step in stabilizing a country.

Lastly, the economy has been steadily improving- if Americans *feel* wealthier then that's worth a lot more than Kerry's promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs. Kerry's also been a crazy as hell free trade supporter, so it just looks like more flip-flopping. He hasn't committed to a steady stance on a *single* marginal issue yet. From Roe vs. Wade to affirmative action to the way the war on terror is hurting civil liberties, none of the right buttons are being pushed.

Kerry's campaign ads have been biographical, Bush's ads have attacked Kerry on the issues, albeit with half-truths and lies. Kerry should honestly fight fire with fire- talk about WMDs, talk about security and talk about the right way to fight terror. The election's ripe for Kerry's picking, he just isn't walking through the gaping open door.