« Hillary Diddy | Home | New Carnival of the Bush Bloggers »
Not Quite The Bounce They Needed
By Matt Margolis | July 31, 2004
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that after Kerry picked his running mate and accepted the nomination at the Democrat’s convention that he we’d like see Kerry “anywhere from eight to twelve points up.”
Matthew Dowd, Chief Strategist of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign said historical analysis suggested “Kerry should have a leard of more than 15 points coming out the convention.”
They were both wrong.
The bounce was a whopping 4 points, according to Newsweek.
Kerry’s four-point “bounce” is the smallest in the history of the NEWSWEEK poll. There are several factors that may have contributed to the limited surge, including the timing of the poll. On Thursday, Kerry had just a two-point lead over Bush (47 percent to 45 percent), suggesting that his Friday night speech had a significant impact. Additionally, Kerry’s decision to announce his vice-presidential choice of John Edwards three weeks before the convention may have blunted the gathering’s impact. And limited coverage by the three major networks also may have hurt Kerry.
With the constant attacks against Bush the past few months, including a number of books and Michael Moore’s propaganda film Fahrenheit 911, Kerry’s current standing is quite weak. During the month of August the Bush campaign will rise up and go on the offensive, not only deflating the Kerry bounce, but also sending the Kerry-Edwards campaign into freefall.
Be afraid Kerry, be very afraid.
Topics: The Campaign Trail |
Related Posts:
August 1st, 2004 at 11:59 am
The race is still Bush’s to lose. Bush needs only keep the states he won last time and he’s reelected. If there’s a recount debacle again and the case goes to the Supreme Court, Bush wins. If there is a tie in the electoral vote and the election goes to the House of Representatives, Bush wins.
Every poll has shows a dead heat or Kerry ahead in the margin of error. He has to build a commmanding lead, and I don’t think there are enough swing voters to do it. Unless more new voters are being registered that will vote for Kerry, Bush will win again with 49% of the vote.
August 1st, 2004 at 7:07 pm
Oh and here’s big surprise. You have to be a prescreened supporter in order to see Bush or Cheney speak. If not campaign workers don’t allow you in.
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20040731-149566.shtml
August 2nd, 2004 at 12:34 am
Think about this for a second.
How is Kerry going to improve our relations in the mid-east? The Saudis are red hot over Farenheit 9/11 and no Democrats are willing to critisize it because they need to feed on anti-Bushism. Is he planning to turn his back on Isreal - the only current nuclear power in the region? What do you think they will do then? Think they will end the Iran nuclear threat without asking for permission?
How is John Keryy going to improve the economy? First off - we are already in recovery. His wifes companies are as guilty as any as moving jobs overseas. The Fed is outside of presidential control. What will he do? Raise taxes? Is that his plan?
How will he protect my Rights? He came off the campaign trail to vote to extend the “assault weapons” ban which is an impresive name for a weak law. He has consistently voted against gun owners civil rights for decades. Is that all over because he had a photo op shooting skeet?
How is he going to mend the fence with Europe? Don’t forget, many NATO nations did help and did send troops to Iraq. Those that did not were interestling centered in the EU - a group that has turned out to be a real economic competitor.
How will he solve the Taiwan / China conflict? It is possible that this could errupt into war within the next year. Will he back-up Taiwan, or abandon it?
What about those crazy North Koreans? The government in the south wqas elected on anti-American rhetoric. And don’t you know they are a little freaked out with the fact that we were listening. We are pulling about half our troops out of there. Will he leave it to the locals to deal with? Abandon South Korea and Japan? Suggest they look to the Chinese and Russians for help? The North says they’ll disarm if we leave the South completely? John believe them ya think?
And, do you think that Teresa Heinz-Kerry, since she is helping finance her husbands bid so much, should publically disclose her finances. She has not so far. And she refuses to do so. Is that keeping with the “new” way John thinks things should be done?
Here is your chance to convert me Democrats - I’ll ignore abortion and Gay marriage. Just tell me what Johns plan is. The Dem convention just ended. What would I be voting for if I chose them?
August 2nd, 2004 at 2:06 am
Kahn
Where did you hear the Saudi’s are angry over F-911 and why does John Kerry have to apologize for something that he himself has not lauded? John Kerry supports Israel, he mentioned support for Israel in his convention speech and has made this fact known other times. I would like to point out that Bush asked for “permission” for Iraq and got “permission” for Afghanistan. I think both Bush and Kerry will try using diplomacy with Iran first, at this moment the military has obligations elsewhere and I doubt an invasion or large airstrikes would be risked by either candidate.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
I would explain myself why Teresa Heinz Kerry has nothing to do with job outsourcing but that link does it justice. If you want to know Kerry’s economic plan in detail I suggest you go to his site, I’m critical of some of it but it beats the vagueness of Bush’s economic plan which hinges upon tort reform, deregulation, and the hope free trade and outsourcing are beneficial rather than negative.
Bush promised to renew the Assault Weapons Ban but has actually hindered its renewal, Kerry of course would support its renewal. Most large police organizations want the ban upheld.
In Europe even the majority of countries supporting the US in Iraq have populations that oppose Bush. Its unlikely Bush will be able to make any progress with European countries, especially as our coaltion partners face elections.
I’ll reply to the rest later.
August 2nd, 2004 at 10:37 am
Ah Miles.
The Saudi link is gone now and I’d have to search for it. The gist was that Moore makes lots of references to Bush deals with Saudi’s and accuses them of lots of bad - blah blah blah. Fact is Kerry wants to be president and he and all the Democrats refuse to condemn Moore and they treat him like a celebrity. And, this is not a TV show - this is real. And that is why he must condemn Moore and aplogize for the democrats making political profit from his propaganda lies.
So. You can’t give me any reason to support Kerry?
He’d “support Isreal” How would he mend Arab fences then?
He’d extend the assault weapons ban? Do YOU know waht its effects have been? Long guns were NEVER the weapon of choice for gangs. But, your knee-jerk reaction says much - you lose my vote on that issue.
Teresa doen’t need to disclose? She wants to live in the white house and is footing much of the bill to get there. She is personally all over the map. And we don’t have a right to know her finances? OK - Hypocracy - you lose my vote there also.
Iraq - I think you are mis-stating the support for Iraq but none-the-less, what will change in January? We will be nearly six months further into the process. The socio-economic reason that kept Russia, France, and Germany from helping us will not be gone. And Kerry is not really offering a different vision for moving on from here. He just critisizes how we got here. Nope - you lose my vote here for an incredulous and arrogant (we will do better because we are smarter) plan for Iraq.
Note - you ignored China and Korea - and Isreal reaction to nikes in Iran. FOUR nuclear powers - no mention (don’t run for political office OK?)
Kerry’s economic plan? It is out of his control. He can beg the Republican Congress for laws which they will not give him. And, the Fed is outside his control. Bush did the tax cut frankly, because thats really about all you can do. Increased protectionism - as proposed by the Dems will run into World Trade issues and will NOT help mend those European fences. No vote here also for being full of crap.
August 2nd, 2004 at 3:56 pm
Just to momentarily step in, the republicans have yet to condemn Rush, so criticizing democrats over Moore is rather silly.
August 2nd, 2004 at 7:19 pm
Kahn just remember what I said at the end of my post: [b]I’ll reply to the rest later.[/b] I’m also not trying to convince you of anything, I am just clarifying some of your misconceptions.
I did not finish replying to you and I did not comment about Teresa’s finances, that link only has to do with false rumors the Heinz corporation outsourcing jobs…
Bush isn’t going to change policy on Israel Kahn, and its hard to see how he could possibly gain more respect for America in the Middle East. After 9/11 support for the US there went up, now in most Middle East countries 95% of the population looks at us unfavorably, thats from a Gallup poll.
Knee jerk response? I’m not a gun owner and I’m not going to bother trying to argue the specifics of a ban on guns I have never handled. I can only point who wants the ban, police officers. I’ve heard that it puts too much emphasis on cosmetic features rather than functionality.
Once again I did not finish replying to you on this topic. If China and North Korea made any offensive moves right now it would extremely difficult to respond militarily for either Bush or Kerry because so many of our troops are bound to Iraq. Kerry would use a much more direct and determined diplomacy with North Korea to resolve the current debacle, if such a conversation made no progress he would fully support a military response to end the threat.
Germany, France, and Russia are not the only countries who did not join us in Iraq and they also have populations that largely were against the war, their involvement is by no means necessary. Bush hasn’t suggested much on enlargening the coaltion or spreading the burden of the occupation. Kerry plans to get NATO onboard and from there gain other countries support and put less burden on the US, as well as quickly and effiecently train Iraqi police forces. This would also allow the US to better respond to threats you already mentioned, like North Korea and Iran, because it military action against them would at least be more plausible and force concessions out of them.
Kerry’s economic plan does not entirely depend on Congress, and there is no guarantee it will remain in Republican control. I don’t know why your calling his plan protectionism without actually looking at it. And tax cuts are neither the most relible nor the best method to improve the economy that is available to the government. In many cases states were forced to raise taxes because they could not get adequate funds from the federal government, nullifying much of the federal tax cuts.
August 2nd, 2004 at 9:36 pm
Kyle - Rush rightly pointed out that the humiliations imposed on Iraqi prisoners were not really in the same league with attrocities as they are normally defined. Look past the anti-Bush hysteria for a minute and realize that the liberal obsession with these infractions caused us real harm overseas. You pick - naked pyramid or lose your tounge? How about naked bondage - or lose your hands? Submit to the whims of a female soldier - or death? It IS trivial in comparison.
August 2nd, 2004 at 9:47 pm
Miles
Gun Cntrol is the limiting of civil rights pure and simple. Truth is - that question was a trick because though you and I believe that Kerry supports gun control - that is NOT in the platform. Why not? Because they are lying about their true intentions.
China and Korea? We did war games with seven carriers last month andf the Air Force is not all that busy. And, there are three more divisions of Marines and about 9 Army Divisions that are not in the field. And you so misunderstand the world if you think we would let an attack on Taiwan or Souith Korea stand. Problem is, the most recent Dem administration was bamboozeled by North Korea and gave the Chinese missile technology - so Democrats don’t really have a good track record there.
Tersa Heinz Kerry is into way more than Heinz Corp. How can you speak of her finances when NO-ONE knows what they are. No other politicos (certainly not someone looking to live on Pennsyvania Avenue) could get away with that. What about Cheney? He walked away from Billions in options to serve.
And, with no change towards Isreal - what can mister I’m-so-smart Kerry do better than Bush? And, I have read his economic plan - sounds like taxes and protectionism, and smoke and mirrors to me.
August 3rd, 2004 at 12:16 am
Kahn
The Democratic platform doesn’t mention gun control because it is not the most important issue to Democrats right now. A Party Platform cannot contain ever position on every issue, the Republican platform is unlikely to have the conservative views on the 17th amendment or their beliefs about Instant run off voting. The absence of something does not mean they have a negative agenda or dark intentions.
I did not say that we would not respond militarily to a Chinese or North Korean offense, I said it would be difficult because so many troops are stuck in Iraq. Clinton prevented the North Koreans from getting nuclear weapons without going to war, even though he was prepared to. Bush has allowed them to get nukes without little to no consequences.
I haven’t spoke of Teresa’s finances, I was responding to this one statement: “His wifes companies are as guilty as any as moving jobs overseas”. My link proved your myth wrong about the Heinz corporation participating in outsourcing, a corporation that Teresa has no control over.
Bush’s economic plan is deregulation, some defunct ideas stolen from supply siders, and the blaming all rising costs ,despite larger corporate profits, on people’s right to sue.
August 3rd, 2004 at 12:56 am
Are you telling me that Rush has never said a single inflamatory or false thing?
August 3rd, 2004 at 10:47 am
Khan, Miles: the Saudi/Moore story is here [url]http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#3[/url]
And here’s some more trouble for Mikey: [url]http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#1[/url]
August 3rd, 2004 at 11:14 am
Kyle - Rush has the same freedom of speech that Al Gore, Teresa Heinz-Kerry (who did actually just say un-American before telling that reporter to shove it), and everyone else does. His show is humorous political commentary. He pokes fun and makes analytical points - which by the way are often right on the money.
Inflammatory? Strong word.
Inflammatory like Al Sharpton inciting riots and murders? Or falsely accusing a NY prosecutor of Rape? No.
Inflammatory like Al Gore saying Bush betrayed us? No.
Inflammatory like falsely claiming to have witnessed and participated in “atrocities” in Viet Nam like John Kerry? No.
He does point out some liberal lies and double-speak along with the occaisional felony. Just because he disagrees with you does not make him bad. But, as soon as you take over you can get some brown shirts and supress him - OK?
August 4th, 2004 at 3:11 am
Here is an article about how kerry could be hurt by questions about his military service
deepthoughtswithtyler.blogspot.com
August 4th, 2004 at 3:11 am
is john kerry fit to comand
This could cost kerry the election
August 4th, 2004 at 10:26 pm
Kahn, Teresa Heinz Kerry referred to un-American traits; while the reporter falsely claimed that she said referred to un-American activities.
We now know even more about your integrity than we did before.
August 4th, 2004 at 11:10 pm
Lowell - you are a nit-picking wacko my friend - shove it! (I love the new Heinz PC!)
So, un-American “traits” is OK and un-American “activities” is not? Don’t be obtuse. They key word is un-American. And since we could all see the same thing, what could I possibly lie about? The reporter was asking her to explain herself. Instead he go a mouthful of hate from a rich overbearing liberal.
Lets see if your statement fits into the pattern of derision and diversion I claim you liberals use. - hmmmm, obtuse nitpicking of words (diversion) and questioning my integrity (derision) why yes. Yes it does! Congratulations! You are an asshole.
August 4th, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Miles or one of the libs - help Lowell out - its really not fun when the competition is that easy.
August 5th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
On Rush:
“Are we still on that? Did this not get settled last week? You’ve got to be kidding me! You mean the media is still out there staying that there are no ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq? The New York Times had a story over the weekend and says there were, now. The New York Times is eager to correct its big mistake because they’re out there pointing out that there was Baghdad got hold of Al-Qaeda in the 90s. The point is these people were never in favor of preemption.”
(6/29/04)
While Rush insists, “this was settled last week”, he left out the part where the 9/11 Commission determined there was no working relationship between Al-Queda and Sadam in the attack on 9/11.
Rush also fails to mention that each time an effort is made by the administration to prove the alleged relationship, it fails. Dogulass Feith was compelled to present evidence backing repeated assertions that Sadam and Al-Queda had a relationship. The only thing he produced was some raw intelligence which as leaked to the press. The raw intelligence amounted to nothing more than uncorraborated, unsubstantiated, unverified heresay. The administration back in October used a statement from a prisoner at Guantanamo to assert “Iraq trained Al-Queda terrorist in chemical weapons manufacturing”. Under questioning, the prisoner recanted his statement.
“Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?”
(5/04/04)
Maybe you don’t believe it was torture. But to say it’s JUSTIFIED and to equate it to a college hazing event? That’s just sick.
I hope I don’t need to continue.
Oh, as for people griping about Kerry’s war records:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040805_1092.html
August 5th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Here’s John McCain talking about the “Is John Kerry Unfit to Command?” ad
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain
Bush Supporters believe McCain is unworthy of the Office of President because of spending five years in a Viet Cong prison while Bush heroically drank too much and snorted coke when he was valiantly AWOL from a Daddy-appointed position in the Champagne Brigade of the Air National Guard. They also believe his adopted daughter from Bangledesh is a bastard Mulatto from an adulterous affair with a Black whore. They further believe Max Cleland losing three of his limbs in Vietnam makes him as evil and despicable as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
August 5th, 2004 at 8:46 pm
Kahn, the plain fact is that you misrepresented the content of the exchange. The guy referred to “un-American activities,” something that THK never said. You pretend that her denial is false by misrepresenting what she was denying. There is no reason for you to do that, other than your lack of integrity.
You can accuse me of “nit-picking” all you want, but the fact is that you deliberately misrepresented what was said. You can (falsely) call me a nitpicker, but I can (truthfully) call you a liar.
August 8th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
Lowell, I cannot let this thread end on that note. While THK did say un-American traits rather than activities, she denied using the un-American reference for all practical intents. All she had to do was respond ‘I said they had certain un-American traits in my opinion, not they had participated in un-American activities’ and then told the reporter to shove it and I would have applauded her and laughed my butt off. Why did she not do that?
The Dems have gotten into this playing games with words business so much, that now they do it without thinking and all you are doing is going down that same path. It is ridiculous and may play between lawyers when they are trying imply something without actually saying it so they can’t be sued. But to the every day Joe this kind of ‘Aha! That’s not what I said, that is just what I led you to believe” bs doesn’t wash.
Remember ‘I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.’ and then the inane excuse that it wasn’t a lie because it depends on how you define sexual relations?
That is the kind of dancing around the truth that everyone just hates and it seems like Kerry and his wife are intent on carrying on that tradition. ‘I voted for it before I voted against it!’
August 12th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Ed, why is THK responsible for going into details about exactly how she was misquoted? She said the guy said something she didn’t say. That’s true. Why isn’t HE responsible for clarifying what he meant? Why is it “playing word games” for her to simply respond to being misquoted by saying that she didn’t say that (which she didn’t). And Kahn carefully and deliberately accused her of lying by picking on one thing she said without describing the entire exchange. You just want to call THK a liar, so you don’t really care what the facts are. If somebody comes forward with the actual facts, you accuse them of “playing word games.” We now know something about your integrity too.