If Bush's poll numbers dropped dramatically

The whole notion of "electability" is based on the premise that Bush is going to be difficult to beat, and that we need the most "electable" candidate to compete. But what is the threshold for Bush's poll numbers before people figure that he is toast no matter who runs against him?

I would have to say in the low 40s, high 30s for him to be beatable even by Sharpton. But it doesn't look like he will become THAT hated unless Fiztgerald finds proof in the course of his investigation that Bush looked hte other way in regards to 9/11 and that became general knowledge.

xx

That's what's hard to believe. It's already know that the Bush Admin looked the other way prior to 9/11; it was preventable.

• They were told Al Qaeda was #1 priority, and were handed a plan for "rolling back" Al Qaeda the first week of January 2001.
  
  
• They blew off fighting Al Qaeda in favor of missile defense, tax cuts, and Iraq.
  
  
• The "roll back" plan was finally signed-off on Sep 4, 2001.
  
  And it *should* be general knowledge by now. It's been in Time magazine plus all the O'Neill stuff from a few weeks back.
  
  (sigh)
  

n/t

... my reading odf the charts suggests that Bush has an absolute floor of right around that number.

Ugh. It would hell fun if Bush got there and we had an open convention, but I dunno if it's worth the gamble!!

That is what we need to win.

He has to be so low that nobody will believe it if he "wins".

will be free, fair, and honest. Who really thinks that will happen?

I've been having another thought about the results in Iowa and New Hampshire: In both states the results were quite different from the polling that was taking place up to the last minute. How surprised would we all be if the polling on November shows the Democrat well ahead, and then the actual vote count . . . . shows Bush winning. In just enough states to give him the electoral college.

Think about it.

How does someone who has been up there at those numbers, lose that many points in the polling and how does someone who has been down there in the single digits rise so fast? A recount of the polling votes might be in order! Seems to me in a couple of days, there was a 50 point turn-around. You would have to be found with, as the saying goes "a dead girl or a live boy" for this to happen and this did not happen. You can't even use the "rally yell", which was not reported fairly or accurately, to explain it in the Iowa caucus!

But, I also would not be surprised if there was NO election. The Homeland Security terror alerts are set that if there was a terrorist (?) attack, let's say a couple of days before election day, we would be in the RED ALERT, and under that, we are under a 24 hour house curfew, until they lift it. Can't leave the house...can't vote! Wonder if they would count the absentee ballots and military ballots?! (Remember, that the Mayor of NY, wanted to not hold the elections after 911 either).

since about the 13 of September, 2001, that there really won't be an election this year. Oh, maybe there'll seem to be one -- it's hard to know if the regime will actually cancel the election outright, although a Red alert status that only applies to certain (heavily Democratic) areas might be a possibility.

If there's no reliable exit polling, and there probably won't be, we will really have no way of knowing if the results reported are anywhere near the reality. Especially if the next primaries also have anomalous results. This is important, no matter which candidate you support. It can be easy to get lost in the fog of caring how your guy did or didn't do. More important is whether the vote count matches reality.

I have never been willing to believe that Max Cleland really lost his seat fair and square. And I understand that in parts of California where the electronic voting machines were in full force, there were some very odd results. Yeah, Arnold still carried the day, but there were unusually large blocks of votes for candidates well down on the list. (No, I don't have a link. This is something my husband noted and told me about a day or so after the recall election.)

Is based on the fact that the voters and in particular the swing voters, are seeing who he may be running against. That is a critical factor in a presidents rating ust prior to an election. Jusat a few weeks ago when Dean was the frontrunner, polls not only showed Bush beating Dean by 20 point, but actually showed that 20 percent of registered democrats would vote for Bush if Dean was the nominee. Now that Dean is not the front runner, those polls are changing rapidly. As Kerry becomes more and more the frontrunner, the polls show more and more a belief that Bush can be beaten sweeping through the ranks of Democratic and Independent voters. If you looks at recent polls before Kerry was up front, you find very different data.

The electability of a candidate is totally based on the fact that many more people beleive that this candidate can beat Bush.

And that threshold has changed regularly as differnt candidates moved closer to frontrunner status. Only Clark comes near to Kerry, and then, Bush still gets a greater percentage of voted than Clark, but within a statistical margin of error making both Bush and Clark equally able to win. Only does Kerry beat Bush for certain in a number of polls. Remove Kerry from the equation, and Bush becomes the winner again. I all polls. As the polls have varied since last December, a Dean nomination meant a Bush win. Only polls showing a Kerry nomination have shown Bush losing. You cannot separate the candidate who is the expected nominee from the perceived election results.

When Kerry was the frontrunner last summer and bashing Bush, Bush's poll numbers went down too. The credibility of the person carrying the message matters.

whether the candidate is liable to shoot himself in the foot and then stick it in his mouth, too.

So, Candidate A against bush this far away from the election? The answer is probably the somewhere in the low twenties with ongoing bush difficulties