Bush app. still in low 40s in new Economist poll

New Economist Poll has good news & less good news

This week's Economist/You Gov poll has just come out and it contains a lot of good news for John Kerry. The poll was conducted August 31-September 2, with 2589 respondents ("Registered to vote": 2209, "Will definitely vote": 2010), and the MoE is +/- 2%.

Suppose the election for President were being held TODAY. Who would you vote for? George W. Bush, the Republican; John F Kerry, the Democrat; Ralph Nader, an independent candidate, or someone else?

Total; Def to vote (Last week, Two Weeks ago)
George Bush 44% (44, 41); 46% (45, 42)
John Kerry 45% (47, 48); 47% (49, 51)
Ralph Nader 2% (2, 2); 2% (1, 1)
Someone else 3% 3%
Would not vote 1% 0%
Don't know 4% 3%

As of now, what do you think you are most likely to end up doing on November 2?

(Total, Def to vote)
George W Bush 46% 47%
John F Kerry 47% 48%
Ralph Nader 2% 2%
Someone else 3% 3%
Not vote at all 2% 0%

In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

(Total, Def to vote)
Satisfied 36% 39%
Dissatisfied 59% 58%
Don't know 5% 3%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

(Total, Def to vote)
Approve 41% 44%
Disapprove 54% 54%
Don't know 5% 3%

There's more...

What happens if [gag] Bush wins?

from my blog, Basie!

The title of this piece is not in any way meant to imply pessimism on the account of this author--I, like Charlie Cook, think that this race is still wide open, unlike some big media types would have you believe; rather, it is a realization that this election could go either way in the next two months.

So once again, I posit this question: what happens if Bush wins?

Of course this would mean a continuation of this Admistration's policies. That goes without saying. It would also mean a fundamental change in the Supreme Court, as whoever is President next term could realistically name four justices. This is also not the answer I am looking for. Finally, it would lead to a continuation of the activist foreign policy that has so defined this current term. Another correct answer, but not the direction in which I am looking.

To be more exact, let me rephrase the question as such: how will George W. Bush govern if reelected?

There's more...

FCC Commissioner decries lack of coverage

from my blog, Basie!

In another interesting op-ed in today's edition of The New York Times (the other coming from former GOP Senator Edward Brooke), FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps slams the television networks for barely covering the two major-party nominating conventions this year. As he mentions, it is interesting that he, a Democrat, is complaining about the lack of coverage of the Republican National Convention. I think it shows his true dedication to the merits of the issue rather than mere partisanship.  He writes,

Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.

What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.

It is of course interesting when a media critic such as Ken Auletta of The New Yorker or Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post to take such a hard stand on this issue, but its even more meaningful when a person in a position of power such as Copps writes such a piece.

There's more...

Moderate Republicans come out against Bush

from my blog, Basie!

In the past few days leading up to the Republican National Convention, a number of articles have been written lamenting the direction of the GOP.  The New York Times' usually apologetic "conservative" David Brooks makes the case in this weekend's magazine that the party must create a new vision for America (which he lays out).  Garrison Keillor, the host of public radio's A Prairie Home Companion, writes another interesting column on current Republican extremism.  Additionally, I wrote a post yesterday lamenting the demise of the liberal/moderate wing of the Republican Party, a eulogy of sorts.

While I think all of these pieces are worth reading, they do not come from "real" Republicans; Brooks is the Alan Colmes of the right, Keillor is a self-proclaimed liberal, and I like to think of myself as a left of center moderate.  As a result, it would be foolish to believe that anything written by us, or others like us for that matter, would have any tangible effect on the Republican Party.

A new group of voices that actually matter have joined us in beckoning the GOP to "come back to the mainstream." The AP is reporting that a group of former high ranking Republicans is calling on their party to move back to the center.

"Instead of partisan ideology -- which increasingly has led moderates to leave the party -- what's needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream," the group called Mainstream 2004 said in newspaper advertisements to be published Monday.

The "Come Back To The Mainstream" ads say what many moderate Republicans are thinking, said A. Linwood Holton, who was Virginia governor from 1970-74.

The problem lies with the "extremist element that controls the Republican party," Holton said, "which has polarized this country."

These are certainly strong words coming from a politician of such stature.

There's more...

History shows why this election won't be close

from my blog, Basie!

There has been quite a bit of talk among the pundits that this is shaping up to be one of the closest elections ever.  Clearly, both sides are tightly contesting the campaign, and polls have consistently shown a statistical tie (or near to one) between President Bush and Senator Kerry.  What is more, partisanship in the nation is at levels not seen for decades.  Nevertheless, history shows that plenty of elections have possessed all of these things yet have turned out to be landslides rather than nail biters.

In the past century 25 Presidential elections were held, five of which had margins tight enough in either the electoral vote or the popular vote to be deemed "close" (at least by this author): 1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 and of course 2000.  Each of these featured either a sitting President or Vice President, so all were in effect a referendum on the previous term or terms.  Moreover, each contained the aforementioned facets of this current election (highly contested, close polls [when available], and partisanship).  Nonetheless, all five had one key attribute not found in this election.

There's more...

Vietnam: Still the focus of our elections in 20 years?

from my blog, Basie!

Larry Sabato over at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics has an interesting article over at his website paralleling the central role the Civil War played in US politics with the role Vietnam has played and will play in our current politics.  He hypothesizes that "for only the second time in our nation's history, the bitterness of a bloody, lost war will shadow national politics until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand." In other words, just as the Civil War shaped a number of elections following the conflict, so too has Vietnam affected presidential elections.

There's more...

How Kerry is winning the Swiftvet war

from my blog, Basie!

The past week or so has proved to be the first complete media battle of the 2004 presidential campaign, with John Kerry's experience in Vietnam being debated by political reporters and pundits alike.  True, there have been a number of skirmishes so far on issues ranging from  the War in Iraq to education, the environment to unemployment; in most of these instances, however, at least one side has held some punches, waiting for a later moment to fully engage the competition.  It appears as though the Swiftboat "controversy" has become the moment each campaign was waiting for, and both sides have been willing to go to great lengths to show that they can win at this relatively early juncture.

The other night I wrote about how Kerry's filing of an FEC complaint against the Bush campaign would prove to be an extremely shrewd move as Kerry proved he is no wimp; by laying down the gauntlet on the Swiftvets ads and thus upping the ante in the "Bitch-Slap" battle (as Josh Marshall so eloquently puts it), the Kerry campaign put the Bush team in an extremely tough situation.  As a result, he won the meta-debate by proving he could and would defend himself against vicious attacks by Bush's shrouded allies (unlike Dukakis and Gore).

This strategic victory is not only important in proving John Kerry's strength, however; it is also offering to move the debate into friendly terrain for the Democratic nominee.  While it's true that Kerry's war record is not perfect and his later anti-War stances may prove unpalatable to some, Kerry clearly possesses the upper hand in the debate over President Bush in their respective Vietnam War records (or lack thereof).  

There's more...

Analyzing Kerry's shrewd FEC action

from my blog, Basie!

As all of us have no doubt seen by now, John Kerry has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the group of Vietnam veterans running ads against him.  As CNN writes,

The Kerry presidential campaign on Friday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging ads from an anti-Kerry veterans' group are inaccurate and "illegally coordinated" with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The complaint was filed against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It states that "based on recent press reports and SBVT's own statements there is overwhelming evidence that SBVT is coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney campaign."

This story is just beginning to make its way across the news media, and I'm sure it will continue to develop through the evening newscasts tonight, into the Saturday papers, and gain new life with the Sunday talkshows.  Come Monday, this issue could still have legs.

Just reading the articles can leave your head aching as the traditional media tries to equate progressive 527 groups which attack Bush on issues with the Swiftvets who are producing lies about Senator Kerry's war record.  As the story continues to grow, however, I think it will begin to morph into a question of respective qualities between the two candidates, rather than a mere focus on their resumes.  Here's my thinking.

There's more...

Economist Poll: Kerry up 7, Bush App. @ 39%

from my blog, Basie!

This week's Economist/You Gov poll has just come out and it contains a lot of good news for John Kerry.  The poll was conducted August 16-18, with 1799 respondents ("Registered to vote": 1549, "Will definitely vote": 1417), and the MoE is +/- 2%.

Suppose the election for President were being held TODAY. Who would you vote for? George W. Bush, the Republican; John F Kerry, the Democrat; Ralph Nader, an independent candidate, or someone else?

Total; Def to vote (Last week)
George Bush 41% (43); 42% (45)
John Kerry 48% (48); 51% (49)
Ralph Nader 2% (1); 1% (1)
Someone else 2% 1%
Would not vote 1% 0%
Don't know 6% 4%

As of now, what do you think you are most likely to end up doing on November 2? (not allowing 'don't know')

(Total, Def to vote)
George W Bush 43% 44%
John F Kerry 51% 53%
Ralph Nader 2% 1%
Someone else 3% 2%
Not vote at all 2% 0%

In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

(Total, Def to vote)
Satisfied 35% 38%
Dissatisfied 61% 60%
Don't know 4% 2%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

(Total, Def to vote)
Approve 39% 41%
Disapprove 55% 56%
Don't know 6% 3%

There's more...

You, Wu and Brew a huge success

from my blog, Basie!

I just returned from a completely uplifting campaign event in Portland's Pearl District for Democratic Congressman David Wu. As I wrote earlier, Wu is mired in a tough reelection battle against wealthy challenger Goli Ameri. Ameri is a staunch conservative posing as a moderate, and she is receiving substantial support from rich Persians across the country (she gets about 2/3 of her funds from out of state), the NRCC, and Beltway Republicans like Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (who have both held six-figure fundraisers for her as of late).

Wu's support is definitely different. Though it's true that he also gets a substantial amount of his funds from out-of-state (as the nation's only Congressman born in Taiwan, he brings in money from many Chinese-Americans), Representative Wu derives much of his support from local grassroots activists. Tonight's event was a perfect example of this.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads