Why is Bush not doing better? RCP AVE (7/6 - 7/16) 44.6% 49.3% Kerry +4.7

[59millionmorons]

I love how the media is asking why Kerry is not doing well, Hell the guy is ahead in every damn poll. What the hell do the media want. Must Kerry have a 20 point lead? Hell why is Bush losing in every poll, maybe that should be the question.

Poll Bush/Cheney Kerry/Edwards Spread
RCP Average (7/6 - 7/16) 44.6% 49.3% Kerry +4.7
Rasmussen (7/14-7/16) 1,500 LV 46% 47% Kerry +1
CBS/NYT (7/11-7/15) 823 RV 44% 49% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT (7/8-11) 706 LV 46% 50% Kerry +4
IBD/TIPP (7/6-7/10) 800 RV 44% 49% Kerry +5
Newsweek (7/8-7/9) 1,001 RV 45% 51% Kerry +6
Time (7/6-7/8) 774 LV 45% 49% Kerry +4
Zogby (7/6-7/7) 1,008 LV 44% 46% Kerry +2
CBS News (7/6) 462 RV 44% 49% Kerry +5
NBC News (7/6) 504 RV 43% 54% Kerry +11

http://realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

[calico1]

1. Plus, Bush is an incumbent

An incumbent President should not be tied or behind his challenger. Why don't any of them bring that up?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Mark Shields mentioned this, on some pundit panel show. The

analysis: (This was on whatever show that Dragon Lady Kate O'Beirne is on)

Re-election bids by first termers in the modern era are landslides for or against. Kind of makes sense, voters have had 4 years to see the track record of the incumbent, not like Bush Sr./Dukakis, or Gore/Shrubya for that matter. The "this is going to be a close election" conventional wisdom is all washed up.

Polling is all a referendum on the incumbent until very late in the game.

Where Bush is and has been in the polls this summer is in the territory of the big losers (Bush I, Carter) rather than the big winners (Reagan, Clinton).

Challenger numbers never get very high early in the race because the electorate is not really focused on the challenger until after the conventions, at which time they are critically evaluated as to whether they are a suitable alternative. In this context Kerry's numbers are fine/great, Bush is in serious trouble/the toilet as far as his chances go.

[senseandsensibility]

12. I agree

that the average voter is not really tuned in to the challenger until the convention, and I predict a great reaction from the public to our convention. However, I remember in 2000, Gore got a decent bounce from the convention and SLIGHTLY more positive press for a couple of days. But when it seemed that he might be gaining a little traction, the media took the gloves off and savaged him. Look for the same thing to happen to Kerry, IMHO.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. Right. But the difference is that everyone but the "true believers"

realize that shrubya has screwed the country. We didn't have that going for us last time. That is the difference, and should help us win despite any media savaging of K/E.

Plus, I sense that the K/E ticket has the sort of energy behind it like Clinton/Gore vs. Bush I. Way better than Gore/Lieberman.

[59millionmorons]

14. One more advantage

Ther media seems to love Edwards.

[calico1]

15. Right. And as I mentioned earlier

Bush is an incumbent. In 2000 there was no incumbent. And the VP, Gore, had to run on his own record while trying to distance himself against the negativity surrounding Clinton. And we didn't know much about Bush--at least those of us outside of TX.

[fsbooks]

2. same with "Edwards effect"

The NYTs had an article the otherday (yesterday?) that indicated Edwards was not helping Kerry, meanwhile daily polls compiled at http://www.electoral-vote.com/jul/jul17.html indicate that Kerry is currently ahead 322 to 205 in electoral votes, and what might generally be considered very strong Bush states (WV, VA, NC, SC) only weakly in the Bush camp, with TN a tie.

[against all enemies]

3. Why is Bush doing so WELL?, is the question.

[Beetwasher]

4. Clinton Never Got More Than 50% of the Vote

Kerry's doing amazing. What do they expect, that he should be in the 60's? That's practically impossible in this country, especially w/ Nader in the mix. Also remember, I believe Reagan was behind Carter at this point in '80 and we all remember how that one turned out...In every poll Kerry is ahead of a war-time incumbent, that's incredible.

[MoonRiver]

5. Don't you know we're not supposed to ask such questions?

Just keep repeating: 'the emperor has clothes, the emperor has clothes'.

[Trajan]

6. Today's american electorate is neatly bisected down the middle ..

With very little play in the margin ...

The 'undecided' ranks form a very small percentage, and ANY movement by either candidate into this column represents a great milestone ...

Kerry/Edwards, at + 4.7 %, is a powerful thrust into the margin of undecideds, who are breaking FOR Kerry 2 to 1 ...

The media, and the RNC, would prefer if we didnt realise this ...

[iconoclastic cat]

7. Bisected? More like vivisected.

[BeatleBoot]

8. 6 Point Post Convention Bounce and

it will be very difficult for Bush to come back.

Not my analysis, I heard it by a reporter on Meet The Press this morning.

[59millionmorons]

9. I agree

Bush's problem is he will not get any Gore voters and he will lose alot of 2000 Bush voters.

[NightOwwl]

10. Don't you love it -

media keeps insisting Kerry's campaign is not going well.

The Guardian sees it differently:

Kerry whirlwind seeks to sweep all before it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1263883,00.html

(sorry if you already read the article. I posted it in another link but it's a good read)