| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2004 09:08:08 PM |
| Object: |
Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in
daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided
vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent
ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the
final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter,
Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the
undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that
they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the
upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party
moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled
Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the
two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average American
voter.
But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target - lost
their impact in April.
What happened?
Iraq.
The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate by
the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed.
And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry
Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to women
in the campaign.
His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely
male-oriented.
His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the "fallen"
resonated well with men but crashed among women.
The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms.
Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that the
U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11.
But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and 42
percent, less.
Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism.
Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back
aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting
aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with
other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points.
To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq.
But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.
Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving "no
child behind."
Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein when
he ran Iraq.
He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered nation.
At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable -
Iraq means more safety for our families.
He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic
references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human
beings, children and hope.
If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War
on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into
a second term.
_______________________________________________________
There you have it, folks, Bush is toast.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Man from Mars!" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
21 Apr 2004 09:40:05 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8slb801j8549m3lt99ej4l5mhov5aliem5@4ax.com...
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in
daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided
vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent
ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the
final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter,
Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the
undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that
they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the
upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party
moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled
Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the
two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average American
voter.
But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target - lost
their impact in April.
What happened?
Iraq.
The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate by
the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed.
And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry
Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to women
in the campaign.
His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely
male-oriented.
His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the "fallen"
resonated well with men but crashed among women.
The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms.
Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that the
U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11.
But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and 42
percent, less.
Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism.
Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back
aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting
aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with
other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points.
To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq.
But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.
Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving "no
child behind."
Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein when
he ran Iraq.
He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered nation.
At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable -
Iraq means more safety for our families.
He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic
references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human
beings, children and hope.
If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War
on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into
a second term.
_______________________________________________________
There you have it, folks, Bush is toast.
Harry
I'd like to agree but I think this is another Repug tactic to inspire a
threat and get the 'Pugs off their fat asses. Kerry HASN'T won yrt and
there's a long way to fo and a lot of imbecilic *****-slinging by the 'Pugs
to put up with.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gus" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
21 Apr 2004 08:52:54 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in
daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided
vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent
ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the
final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter,
Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the
undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that
they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the
upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party
moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled
Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the
two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
<choke!>
(crap, I just soiled meself)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Buffalo" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
21 Apr 2004 01:11:21 PM |
|
|
Too bad for Harry Hopeless the polls say otherwise:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<8slb801j8549m3lt99ej4l5mhov5aliem5@4ax.com>...
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in
daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided
vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent
ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the
final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter,
Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the
undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that
they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the
upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party
moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled
Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the
two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average American
voter.
But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target - lost
their impact in April.
What happened?
Iraq.
The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate by
the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed.
And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry
Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to women
in the campaign.
His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely
male-oriented.
His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the "fallen"
resonated well with men but crashed among women.
The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms.
Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that the
U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11.
But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and 42
percent, less.
Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism.
Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back
aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting
aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with
other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points.
To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq.
But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.
Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving "no
child behind."
Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein when
he ran Iraq.
He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered nation.
At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable -
Iraq means more safety for our families.
He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic
references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human
beings, children and hope.
If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War
on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into
a second term.
_______________________________________________________
There you have it, folks, Bush is toast.
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
22 Apr 2004 11:16:49 PM |
|
|
Johnny Buffalo wrote:
Too bad for Harry Hopeless the polls say otherwise:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html
Too bad for Johnny Buffalochip the polls say otherwise:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=821
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry holds a three-point lead (47%-44%) over
President George W. Bush among likely voters, according to a new Zogby
International poll. The poll of 1049 likely voters was conducted Thursday
through Saturday (April 15-17, 2004). Overall results have a margin of
sampling error of +/-3.1.
...
In the Blues States, those that were won by former Vice-President Al Gore in
the 2000 presidential election, Kerry receives 52.8% of support, as compared
to Bush with 35.7%. Bush leads in his Red States with 51.5% to Kerry’s 41.8%.
...
Kerry leads over Bush in the Eastern (53.1% - 35.3%) and Western (50.1%-38.5%)
regions, while Bush leads in the South (48.2%- 43.9%) and in the Central Great
Lakes (49.8%- 43.7%).
...
In terms of racial demographics, Kerry leads over Bush among African Americans
(84.0% -5.7%) and Asians (81.4% -1.8%), while Bush leads over Kerry among
Whites (49.9%-41.8%) and Hispanics (48.6%- 42.7%). *Sub-groupings in this
category are small.
...
With regard to voter party affiliation, Kerry leads over Bush among voters who
identified themselves as Democrats (77.8%- 12.4%) and independents (48.4%-
38.3%), while Bush leads over Kerry among Republicans (82.7%-12.4%) and
Libertarians (48.0% -35.4%).
...
When asked if President Bush "deserves to be re-elected", 42.5% of likely voters
(down from 44% last month) responded positively, while the majority (51.1%)
continues to say that it is "time for someone new".
...
Approximately one-half of men (49%) support Bush over Kerry (44%), while the
majority (50%) of women support Kerry over Bush (39%). Among married couples,
Bush leads over Kerry (51%- 41%), while Kerry leads Bush (57% -35%) among
singles.
Nearly one in three (30%) identified jobs and the economy as top issues facing
the country, followed by the war in Iraq (21%); the war on terrorism (18%);
health care (7%) and education (5%).
Pollster John Zogby: "Kerry leads in the East and West; has the strong Democratic
support he will need to counter Bush’s huge support among Republicans. Kerry’s
margin over the President with independents should be cause for concern in Bush
campaign circles – especially after their advertising blitz. Kerry also holds
strong support among those who say the US is on the wrong track. For now, Kerry
leads more in the Blue States than Bush leads in the Reds. Kerry also has a huge
lead among liberals to counter Bush's lead among conservatives. But Kerry leads
among both moderates and independents. The gender gap is significant again (Bush
had closed it before, but now it is back--perhaps because of the war). Meanwhile,
the marriage gap remains huge.
...
Kerry's taken Duhbya's best punches so far and he's not only unaffected but
has set fund raising records.
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<8slb801j8549m3lt99ej4l5mhov5aliem5@4ax.com>...
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in
daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided
vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent
ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the
final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter,
Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the
undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that
they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the
upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party
moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled
Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the
two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average American
voter.
But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target - lost
their impact in April.
What happened?
Iraq.
The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate by
the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed.
And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry
Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to women
in the campaign.
His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely
male-oriented.
His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the "fallen"
resonated well with men but crashed among women.
The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms.
Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that the
U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11.
But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and 42
percent, less.
Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism.
Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back
aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting
aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with
other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points.
To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq.
But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.
Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving "no
child behind."
Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein when
he ran Iraq.
He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered nation.
At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable -
Iraq means more safety for our families.
He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic
references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human
beings, children and hope.
If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War
on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into
a second term.
_______________________________________________________
There you have it, folks, Bush is toast.
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger ***** Morris sez Dubya's in trouble |
23 Apr 2004 12:18:02 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in
news:408898B1.54B5EEFF@hotMOVEmail.com:
Johnny Buffalo wrote:
Too bad for Harry Hopeless the polls say otherwise:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.ht
ml
Too bad for Johnny Buffalochip the polls say otherwise:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=821
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry holds a three-point lead (47%-44%)
over President George W. Bush among likely voters, according to a new
Zogby International poll. The poll of 1049 likely voters was
conducted Thursday through Saturday (April 15-17, 2004). Overall
results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1.
...
In the Blues States, those that were won by former Vice-President Al
Gore in the 2000 presidential election, Kerry receives 52.8% of
support, as compared to Bush with 35.7%. Bush leads in his Red States
with 51.5% to Kerry’s 41.8%. ...
Kerry leads over Bush in the Eastern (53.1% - 35.3%) and Western
(50.1%-38.5%) regions, while Bush leads in the South (48.2%- 43.9%)
and in the Central Great Lakes (49.8%- 43.7%).
...
In terms of racial demographics, Kerry leads over Bush among African
Americans (84.0% -5.7%) and Asians (81.4% -1.8%), while Bush leads
over Kerry among Whites (49.9%-41.8%) and Hispanics (48.6%- 42.7%).
*Sub-groupings in this category are small.
...
With regard to voter party affiliation, Kerry leads over Bush among
voters who identified themselves as Democrats (77.8%- 12.4%) and
independents (48.4%- 38.3%), while Bush leads over Kerry among
Republicans (82.7%-12.4%) and Libertarians (48.0% -35.4%).
...
When asked if President Bush "deserves to be re-elected", 42.5% of
likely voters (down from 44% last month) responded positively, while
the majority (51.1%) continues to say that it is "time for someone
new". ...
Approximately one-half of men (49%) support Bush over Kerry (44%),
while the majority (50%) of women support Kerry over Bush (39%).
Among married couples, Bush leads over Kerry (51%- 41%), while Kerry
leads Bush (57% -35%) among singles.
Nearly one in three (30%) identified jobs and the economy as top
issues facing the country, followed by the war in Iraq (21%); the war
on terrorism (18%); health care (7%) and education (5%).
Pollster John Zogby: "Kerry leads in the East and West; has the
strong Democratic support he will need to counter Bush’s huge support
among Republicans. Kerry’s margin over the President with
independents should be cause for concern in Bush campaign circles –
especially after their advertising blitz. Kerry also holds strong
support among those who say the US is on the wrong track. For now,
Kerry leads more in the Blue States than Bush leads in the Reds.
Kerry also has a huge lead among liberals to counter Bush's lead
among conservatives. But Kerry leads among both moderates and
independents. The gender gap is significant again (Bush had closed it
before, but now it is back--perhaps because of the war). Meanwhile,
the marriage gap remains huge.
...
Kerry's taken Duhbya's best punches so far and he's not only
unaffected but has set fund raising records.
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<8slb801j8549m3lt99ej4l5mhov5aliem5@4ax.com>...
From The New York Post, 4/20/04:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22968.htm
DUBYA IN TROUBLE
By ***** Morris
April 20, 2004 --
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race
in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a
stalemate.
Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days,
President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen.
John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent.
John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement
either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the
undecided vote almost always goes against the incumbent.
Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an
incumbent ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is,
look at the final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls.
My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern,
Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent
of the undecided vote.
Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported
that they were undecided in the final polls.
So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has
the upper hand.
More bad news for Bush:
Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as
downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic
Party moorings.
Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly
ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore
outpolled Bush by 500,000 votes.
I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in
the two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination.
After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average
American voter.
But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target -
lost their impact in April.
What happened?
Iraq.
The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate
by the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed.
And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry
Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to
women in the campaign.
His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely
male-oriented.
His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the
"fallen" resonated well with men but crashed among women.
The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms.
Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that
the U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11.
But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and
42 percent, less.
Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism.
Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight
back aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for
fighting aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to
work with other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap
of 30 points.
To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq.
But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.
Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving
"no child behind."
Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein
when he ran Iraq.
He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered
nation.
At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable
- Iraq means more safety for our families.
He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic
references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human
beings, children and hope.
If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the
War on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry
him into a second term.
_______________________________________________________
There you have it, folks, Bush is toast.
Harry
Still gotta keep Bush's feet to the fire. Every American patriot should
fill his car with voters on election day. This election will be won or
lost on voter participation. A large turn out will always favor
democrats. Every store I go to I talk with the workers - all it takes to
turn a Bush voter to a Kerry voter among folks that work for a living is
the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
