Ryan Lizza: "Republicans shouldn't celebrate quite yet"

[nostamj]

good analysis of recent polling trends....

<snip>

An ABC News/Washington Post survey released on Tuesday recorded a five-point lead among registered voters for Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry when Ralph Nader was offered as a choice (48 percent to 43 percent to 6 percent) and a one-point lead when the matchup was narrowed to President Bush and Senator Kerry (49 percent to 48 percent). In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released the same day, Mr. Bush led Mr. Kerry 47 percent to 44 percent, with Mr. Nader drawing 5 percent. Without Mr. Nader it was Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. The next day, a poll from Investor's Business Daily confirmed the trend, showing Mr. Bush at 44 percent, Mr. Kerry at 40 percent and Mr. Nader at 4 percent.

The reaction was predictable. Mr. Bush's chief campaign strategist bragged that the president had defied the "pundits" with his strong position, while Democrats were crestfallen. If Mr. Kerry can't hold onto a lead during one of the worst stretches of the incumbent's presidency, they whispered, how can he defeat Mr. Bush when things get brighter for the president?

But Democrats should pause before they give up — and Republicans shouldn't celebrate quite yet. President Bush's vulnerabilities remain, even if they were not as apparent in this week's polls as they were in previous surveys; the question is whether Mr. Kerry can exploit them.

In none of the polls this week that purported to show the Bush surge does the president have majority support. Any politician running for re-election sweats when a poll shows him under 51 percent. Voters who say they are undecided almost always end up opposing the incumbent — they know him well, and if they were going to vote for him, they would have already decided. Thus support for Mr. Bush should be seen more as a ceiling, while support for Mr. Kerry, the lesser-known challenger, is more like a floor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/opinion/23LIZZ.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. another "we're DOOMED" rebuttal hehehe n/t

[rumguy]

2. I can't believe that any were celebrating

if Nadar drops out, or if his support drops (as it surely will) before November the race is neck and neck...

further, the polls in the battleground states have Kerry running even or even beating the boy king...

what was there to celebrate?

[ant]

5. interesting about Nader

So the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll has:
Bush 47
Kerry 44
Nader 5

And w/out Nader:
Bush 50
Kerry 46


It seems that in this poll Nader is drawing from likely Bush voters more than Kerry voters and is actually helping Kerry. It kind of makes sense, I guess. I can imagine there are a lot of conservatives out there who really don't like Bush but just can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. They'll vote for some other third party instead, and Nader's a good alternative for them.

[Tomas]

8. Odd

I don't think that makes any sense. Nader is not only politically much closer to Kerry than Bush, but he is also more liberal than Kerry (and of course more liberal than Bush). Why would someone pick conservative guy over liberal guy, but still pick more liberal guy over that same conservative guy?

Try to think of a thing that Nader and Bush agree, but Kerry disagrees. Then try to think of a issue Nader and Kerry agree, but Bush disagrees. Second one should be fairly easy, first one impossible. Then again, there are lot of people who don't base their voting on facts, reality or even sanity.

Actually now that I think of this, single issue voter might prefer Nader over Bush and Bush over Kerry. But these type of people are rare and often extreme(= voting for Bush).

[ant]

9. you're thinking like an informed voter

Stop that! ;)

I was reading today that most people still think we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was connected to Al-Q somehow, so it's quite clear we're dealing with an incredibly ignorant public. Most people only have fuzzy concepts of the candidates and really don't know enough to label them, unless they come with a party label already attached. Kerry is a Democrat, and that probably hurts him with typical conservatives turning away from Bush. Nader, on the other hand, is known as a consumer advocate, and beyond that people don't really know the details. I would guess people tend to view or remember his as slightly nonpartisan, probably rather credible, etc., so they hear his name and go for it.

Then again, even for those who know his politics and disagree with them, it could just be a protest vote. They know Nader's not going to win but just don't want to vote for a Democrat (as opposed to Kerry specifically) over Bush, so they opt for Nader.

[Kazak]

3. Run, Roy, run!!!

:evilgrin:

[wryter2000]

4. Excellent analysis

Thanks for posting it.

Besides, who says things are going to get "brighter" for *? If he doesn't get a huge jump out of the convention, he'll sink like a stone. And with a couple million ticked-off New Yorkers and other protesters, the convention could turn into a rout.

[WI_DEM]

6. "strong position"

the incumbent president is 3-6 points ahead and they consider that strong? even before the campaign or debates??

[Nightjock]

7. Is that the explanation?

A slight rise in the polls for Bush is because Americans rallied to his side during trying times?!
He is the SOLE reason that there are "trying times" and soldiers and innocent people are dying!!!!!!!!!

I am ashamed to live in this country where people are so stupid!

What is this Twilight Zone we are living in?