CBS/N.Y.Times poll has Kerry-Edwards up by 5

[lancdem]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/16/opinion/polls/main630312.shtml

Kerry's post-Edwards bounce appears to have staying power. What I really like is that Bush's share of the vote is just 44 percent, which is bad for an incumbent.

[Gman]

1. It might be wise to start staying out of tall buildings

and away from train stations starting in September. Bushco will not stand by and do nothing. Be careful. Its coming. They will do it.

[lapfog_1]

3. and LAX

dirty bomb, LAX... my prediction.

[Beaverhausen]

4. please don't say that...i'm flying out of there in early october

but yeah...I don't put anything past them.

[Gman]

9. That would make sense since its been Bush's track record to

punish states and localities that didn't support him in 2000. CA is obviously not going to support Bush in 04 so they make a real good target. I don't think Bush would want to terrorize FL.

[lapfog_1]

12. A number of points

1. Bin Laden NEVER gives up on a target, millennium plot targeted LAX..
hence, LAX is still a target.

2. An election dirty bomb attack in one of THE most populated cities
in a state that's very likely to go Kerry would allow for the "election
is in doubt", and "we need to postpone until some semblance of order
is restored", etc, etc.

3. A dirty bomb attack makes a great deal of sense... it's been
rumored (by ASSCRACK) for months now. And there is missing material
from Iraq which could be used in a dirty bomb. And it's disruptive
but not terribly deadly, but very disruptive, plus the terra factor
is high.

4. LAX is close enough to Hollywood, and close enough to port of
LA and lots of other important stuff... not to mention max news
coverage.

I'm sure that I can think of more.

[faithnotgreed]

2. outside of the obvious, one thing i liked was the 60% of people thought

the u.s. should NOT strike first on a country unless they have struck first. and only 33% say the u.s. should strike first

not only would i completely agree but it stands out to me because the meme has been to fight abroad so we dont have to fight here at home...
so the people arent buying that one necessarily , at least thats what i took from the result....

[OKNancy]

5. I want every one to remember this!

Remember one year ago? I went to google and typed "George Bush unbeatable" and this is the first article.

Sept. 3 2003

Four More Years?

The invincibility question

by Patrick J. Buchanan

.....


Is George Bush unbeatable?" Suddenly this summer that became the question du jour of cable TV and the Sunday talkfests. That it is being asked suggests that many consider it impossible that President Bush will lose to any of the current crop of Democratic candidates. From every standpoint—history, issues, money, persona—the defeat of George W. Bush in 2004 appears improbable.

Consider history. In the twentieth century seven Presidents were defeated or declined to run again, for one (or more) of four reasons: perceived failure as a war leader, economic distress, a revolt in the party, or a third-party candidacy that ruptured the incumbent's political base.

Harry Truman, in 1952, and Lyndon Johnson, in 1968, declined to run again. Both faced a major rebellion in the Democratic Party and a loss of public support after miring the United States in a seemingly unwinnable war in Asia.

Five were rejected. William Howard Taft was done in by the third-party campaign of his patron Theodore Roosevelt. Herbert Hoover was wiped out by the Depression. Gerald Ford presided over the U.S. defeat in Vietnam and was bedeviled by Ronald Reagan right up to the Kansas City convention. Jimmy Carter led the country through a year of ignominy in the Iranian hostage crisis and gave us 21 percent interest rates and 13 percent inflation. George H.W. Bush antagonized his base and watched Ross Perot walk off with the populist right in November.

the rest is at: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/buchanan.htm

Edit to add: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[OKNancy]

6. Here is another one

BWHAHAHA- might make your sking crawl

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20030416.shtml

[Kurt Remarque]

7. celebrate but don't get complacent...

dukakis led bush the first by as much as 20 points after the democratic convention in 1984

[Kurt Remarque]

8. ooops...1988

[Geo55]

11. that's alright...it's always 1984 lately

[lancdem]

10. True, but there was no incumbent running then

In the last 50 years, no incumbent who trailed this close to the election won.