A colossal jerk

John Zogby: George W. Bush: Winning Battles But Losing the War
John Zogby
1 hour, 53 minutes ago

snip...

By the onset of bombing of Baghdad, the president’s number were only in the mid-fifties but rose again in the early days of “shock and awe” to 69%. But by the end of May, he was back down to 50% and would stay there for six months.

Fortunately, his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, would never rise beyond 48% support in the polls. In re-examining Mr. Kerry’s support levels throughout 2004, they resemble the EKG of a dead man – 48% in March, 48% before the Democratic National Convention in July, 48% after the convention, 48% by Labor Day, and 48% on election day. A straight line from beginning to end. Kerry never bonded with his constituency or moderates who were looking for an end of the war in Iraq. He never gave them either a plan for ending the war nor a compelling persona to which they could relate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051229/cm_huffpost/013025_200512291601

RW bulls***! At 50% Bush is God, but at 48% with all the bulls*** these a-holes keep spewing Kerry didn't connect with his constituents.

S*** for brains!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

.

may have even alotted more time in 92. In 2000 they gave George Bush more time to sell himself than they did Kerry in 2004, even though the broadcasters gave Bush thousands of hours to sell his presidency and his war for 4 straight years.

more coverage. (Including Monday night football.)

Kerry only got three hours - basically Clinton's , Edwards's and his speech. Now, PBS and the cables covered more. (It was the same for Bush - but as the incumbent he needed no introduction.) I don't know how far in advance they knew this - but I think it may have accounted for them not really covering Kerry's biography well.

In hindsight, they could have used Clinton better. There was no reason for him to spend time praising Kerry's Vietnam service - so have focused more on things Kerry did as a Senator when he was President - COPS, S-CHIP, MIA/POW, and his book on terrorism. Kerry was a good Senator and Clinton was well positioned to sell that.

This change in coverage also makes the claims that Kerry didn't have a message or said little about his 20 years in the Senate more annoying - the convention was the normal time to introduce the candidate and his family. (Many people didn't see Kerry's daughters, Teresa, or the black minister who was on Kerry's crew.)

- and realize that my comment was in hind sight - because they needed to use very scarce time well. I'm sure they knew or suspected that the media would be biased, but I doubt they guessed how much.

I don't know how bad a break losing Clinton was - he would get people excited, but he could have taken away from the limited time Kerry did get.

he's a respected pollster and most assuredly not a right winger.

his opinions are based on his polling, and instead of trashing him it might be better
to heed his words -

they will be valuable for the fights ahead

And what he's been saying since the election doesn't reconcile with that, and certainly not with "dead man."

Respectfully disagree.

Even had 7 and 8 point leads in some polls after the convention. He had great numbers in the spring too. I don't know what motivates people like Zogby, but they lie.

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way

This is kind of silly on it's face, isn't it? The pollster have been telling us that the base the Dems draw on is considerably smaller than the base the Rethugs draw on. So, by definition, in order to get to 48%, didn't Kerry draw a larger percentage of moderate or independent voters than Bush did? Wasn't it Rove's idea to play to his base, not really care about the middle and just go with that?

These conclusions are unsupported. Also, the difference is 3-4% which is not that significant. (And can be explained by the war and the desire by the electorate to not change CICs in war-time.) I don't agree with Zogby at all. I saw a lot of fluctuations in the polls last time.

I think the most interesting thing is the large numbers we had at the start. We were never way down in the low 40's or even 30's, the way I think Clinton was and maybe Gore occasionally too. Don't remember. But maybe we did have a bit more of a solid base to work with?? :shrug:

What I'm wondering is whether that 5% of so-called "moderate", or swing voters, are really nothing more than herd voters. They just jump on the popular bandwagon and go with it.

You're probably right about Zogby. He has to explain his claim that Kerry would win somehow.

That is the thing to remember going forward. The problem that the liberal blogs make is underestimating the appeal of Bush to 'his' voters. It was not a cakewalk election last year at any point for Kerry. I am oh so tired of morons across the board claiming that any Dem should have been able to defeat Bush last year and that only JK screwed up. This is idiotic and blind in the worst possible way.

Dkos does this all the time. He thinks that '04 should have been an easy win. He rails and rails against the RW spin machine, the money and institutional advantage that the Rs have and then completely discounts all this when it comes to the election. I greatly fear that we are going to do this again in '06 and overestimate the amount of anger in the country against the Rs. I really do. Then we will have to go through all the moronic bullshit about this being an 'easy win' and that a few bad apples just screwed it up for the incredibly noble and wonderful rest of us. (What horseshit.)

'06 will NOT be a cakewalk, but I think we can make some important gains. It will take a lot of time, money, effort and hard work to change the government. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you. And there are quite a few people who are lying when they say that '04 should have been easy. (Either that or they are smoking funny substances again.) Change is, and always has been, hard. Failure to recognize that is just another way of being self-blinded.

That is what made me so mad about Zogby's statement. In addition to what you pointed out in an earlier post, the margin of error, the fact that Kerry maintained poll numbers in the upper forties, at time crossing the 50% mark, was a extremely significant feat. The cavalier way in which Zogby make his statement doesn't take into account the SBVT ad blitz, the terror alerts, the misinformation and other factors that could have easily knocked a less savvy candidate that Kerry out of the race. He is truly a fighter.

Kerry would win. I also remember Kerry's numbers going higher than 48% too. If he isn't right wing then he is looking for his next meal ticket and bashing Kerry seems to please some people-even other Democrats. I see this as a major push to discourage Kerry supporters and Kerry himself by planting the idea that he isn't electable.

was because THEY faked a terrorist threat before the news could fully report how wonderful Kerry's speech was at the convention....as we all remember.

I'm gonna defend Zogby here. I believe they are on the left.

I get all of their polls, and they definetly focus on the negatives of this admin.
If anyone wants to get on their list, let me know.

His amnesia about 2004 is pretty shitty, though. It's too bad he has to jump on the Kerry-bashing bandwagon so he can sound like a kool kid.

they are all forgetting that JK won the election. Did Zogby do the exit polls? I too liked his polls before the election, but POLLS BE DAMNED we won and they "flipped the vote"! End of story:cry: I was amazed when at our Dem Twn. Comm. Christmas party, I mentioned how you guys got to meet and have a beer with JK!! I told them that I was semi-suicidal because I missed out on a chance to meet him. they "don't think" he has a chance at the nomination again in '08!!! For town comm. members, they sure aren't hip to what's happening in the real world. When I get worked up and excited about JK, they tell me I'm "preaching to the choir"!! They haven't got a clue!! Boy do we have our work cut out for us!!!

It's been a lot of Hillary talk of late.

Bush had 90% approval ratings in late 2001. He was perceived, whether we like it or not, as a strong President who could keep the country safe. That perception is what we were up against. Kerry and the Dems, in general, killed, just killed on domestic issues. People agreed with us on education, health care, jobs, the economy and so forth. (And by substantial numbers.)

However, 9/11 did happen. It did affect the electorate and it affected the vaunted 'soccer moms' who usually vote more on domestic issues. Kerry and the Dems just didn't make that final leap over the security hurdle. (I think the Russian seige at Beslan also bothered women. If it could happen there, then maybe it could happen to American kids here.)

We now know about a lot of things that we didn't know about last year. We know the NYTimes and the WaPo kept important stories out of the paper that could have affected the outcome. (The NSA story, for one. The original NYTimes article specifically stated that the Rs were scared of a Pres Kerry because he might have been pissed enough aobut it to do some serious investigation and some jail time might have been in the offing for some prominent Rs and their enablers.)

The point is: we had very serious, very determined, very well-funded and very motivated opposition. We ignore that at our peril. At no point last year did the Rs roll over and play dead. They had no bruising primaries to get over and they had no funding problem in March or in August, as the Dems did. (Remember? the $87 billion, voted for & agin it came in March, the SBVT and the free media shitstorm it caused really exploded in Aug when the Dems were conserving money.) Mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made and the Rs made a lot too. But despite all of the advantages that the Rs enjoyed (and that the liberal blogs complain about constantly) Kerry went down to the wire with these guys and, as was said at the Council on Foreign Relations speech, lost it on a 'late field goal.' I am oh so tired of people who say that this election was a massive failure. It was not. It was a squeaker. Kerry did a great job against very long odds.

I don't think there was another candidate out there who could have done as well. I just don't.

Remembering when Pres. Clinton was well enough to get out on the campaign trail with Kerry. The crowd was happy to see him, but they were there to see Kerry. People forget how this country rallied around him.

About the polls, I recall being on the jk forum and asking if anyone there had been contacted by a pollster. No one had. It was always very curious to me who the pollsters were polling. In spite of that fact, Kerry's #'s did grow as the election drew nearer. I don't remember them being a straight line as Zogby stated. And I know in Az their numbers were in a virtual tie on Nov 1st.

Do you ever get the feeling that people are just looking for answers on how that idiot is still in the WH and just print anything to make themselves feel better?

They clearly were not a straight line - my memory matched exactly what sandasea wrote - Kerry was actually ahead in early spring and again around the time of the Democratic convention. In the last week of August and early September, he fell behind (SBVT, hate fest, bad press) - then nearly caught up because of the first debate. All Oct it was very close with Kerry improving in the last week when he was hitting Bush on the unguarded ammo dumps. Then the Bin Ladin tape.

What I don't understand is that the numbers are archieved - why lie when you know you'll get caught.

He ran a very good and close campaign and some sour apples within the party want to see him discredited and blamed for a losing campaign so that he doesn't attempt to run again. As you said, no other candidate could have come as close as JK did. I truly believe this to be the truth. I was always nervous about a win, but I alway knew he was our best candidate.

Zoogby makes me mad because he fails to address why Kerry didn't seem to get any boosts in his poll numbers, finding it easier to just blame Kerry. Kerry did everything legally possible to get his message out. Now we will have a bunch of Kerry bashers using Zoogby's comments as proof they are correct about his campaign. What can we do to correct the misconceptions?

Who excel at convincing people to believe what their own eyes and ears ought to tell them isn't true.

Explain this one. How do voters who insist they do not want government health care support government health clinics in every county. :shrug: That's what that machine is able to do. Lure them in with just enough feel good bullshit so that people can call themselves compassionate, and then set the hook with the real self-serving agenda.

I followed Zogby through all the polls last year. My problem is some of the statements he has made since the election, they seem to be justification for getting it wrong. This one is different because that statement about Kerry poll numbers being like the EKG of a "dead man" at 48% with Bush at 50% somehow being in a strong position doesn't wash. In truth, with the margin of error, Bush was barely surviving. The media prepping for a Bush loss toward the end of the campaign (when Zogby made his 311 prediction) kept pounding home the point that no incumbent president with an approval rating 50% or under ever won reelection. (The counterpoint to that being no candidate ever beat an incumbent president during a time of war).

And all this is over a six-month period leading up to the election. Kerry became the nominee in March.

I can't find their running poll through the end of July. But Kerry was ahead almost consistently until September. It's kind of hard to get a huge bump when you're already winning. But the media didn't report it that way and I would bet it was another case of Dem advisors listening to Republicans to tell them what's going on. I never understood what the problem was in August, we had the crowds, we had the message, we had the momentum. Other than to deal with the media, we were doing great. And for all their war room hype, the Clinton people didn't do such a great job with the swift boats either. Al Gore didn't bump either, he crept up from barely 40 in August to 49 in September and 51 the week of the convention. If you look at his numbers, it's a miracle he won at all.

Bush's bump only gave him the same kind of lead Kerry had had almost all year, he was only really up in the Time poll and I would bet that's the one everyone reported. So now the one who the media basically annointed has some kind of connection ability? Puhleeze.

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm

Compare to Gore
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

A list you can join just to see what polls they conduct or a list of people they are actually polling (I thought it is random)?

Edit: sorry, I replied to the wrong post. I meant to reply to Pirhana's post about Zogby's list.

meaning the people that Zogby emails to participate in their polls.

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected – compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters – 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry’s lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=825



Released: August 15, 2004
Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race; Voters With Passports Give Kerry 58%-35% Edge; Candidates in Dead Heat Among Investors; New Zogby America Poll Reveals


Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is favored over President George W. Bush (47%-43%) among likely voters when Ralph Nader, Libertarian, Constitution and Green Party presidential candidates are factored into the 2004 presidential race, according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1011 likely voters was conducted Thursday through Saturday (August 12-14, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=851

I remember all of the times Kerry was leading in all of the polls.
It did go back and forth, but it was Kerry at the end.
Ugh - it makes my blood boil to think about that now.

Anyway - it definetly makes me question your op on this thread.

In the year end summary on now (a woman is subbing for Lou Dobbs) started out saying,
"that President Bush started 2005 after winning re-election with the LOWEST MARGIN for a winning incumbent President. (No more landslide??)

The kool-aide must be wearing off.

Shocked the hell out of me.

Next they'll be saying that he squeaked by to win. LOL!

No much of a preface commenting about it but I politely disagreed with Zogby's assessment of JK. The thread is here if anyone wants to chime in - http://forum.thedemocraticdaily.com/viewtopic.php?t=64