A bit of positive persepective...just in case you need it (TNR)

[jefferson_dem]

<SUBSCRIPTION REQ'D>

The election is not a toss-up. It's John Kerry's to lose.

June of 2003, Fred Barnes wrote an article for The Weekly Standard's website arguing that "the stars could be aligning for a Bush landslide in 2004." Barnes offered six reasons for this prediction: an improving economy; a successful war in Iraq; a successful Medicare expansion; a huge financial advantage; a Democratic Party in disarray; and a news media discredited by its gloomy coverage in Iraq.

Need I point out that none of these six has panned out? And it's not just one article that looks bad in retrospect. The basis for President Bush's reelection has essentially collapsed. The media now portray the race as a dead heat. This is literally true, but looking forward, the race is now John Kerry's to lose. Which isn't to say that Kerry can't lose. He can. But the point is that, based on the available data, it would take a significant exogenous event for Kerry to lose it. Right now he's on track to win.

There are two main reasons why a tie in the polls looks good for Kerry. First, pollsters have long believed that undecided voters tend to break against incumbents who are well-defined in the public mind. The best explanation is that if they haven't decided to vote for a president they know very well by election day, they'll probably wind up giving his opponent a chance. Therefore, incumbents like Bush are considered to be in danger if they don't have at least 50 percent support in the polls. (Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux has explained this in depth.)

The danger for Bush is magnified by the fact that undecided voters tend to disapprove of him by overwhelming margins. I've seen polls showing that 15 percent or 11 percent of undecided voters believe Bush deserves reelection. For these reasons, respected handicapper Charlie Cook wrote earlier this summer that Bush probably needed a three-point lead going into election day to win. This week I attended a luncheon where a Republican pollster asserted that Bush had a 1 to 2 point lead. I asked him, in light of Cook's analysis, if his own numbers showed that Bush was in real trouble. I won't get into his answer--it wasn't on the record--but it was so unconvincing that I'm not sure even he believed it.


<SNIP>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=chait101504

[Vincardog]

1. What he heck are the polls dong? They over sample Republicans and still

can't get the Idiot Bush to 50%. Doesn't that tell us something? If they can't fix the race in their own crooked poll how do they expect to steal it this time?

Diebold :puke:
Diebold :puke:
Diebold :puke:
Diebold :puke:
Diebold :puke:
Diebold :puke:

They are running the crooked polls to try to justify the coming thefts.

[kaitykaity]

2. Please note: Subscription Required.

:shrug:

[Jacobin]

3. Are the bookies handicapping this race? I'm curious

[qb]

4. Thanks for posting this.

This election will be a slap in the face to Bush and all of the crooked pollsters.