According to a news story today, John Kerry holds a 51% to 44% lead over George Bush in a nationwide poll.

I'm no great fan of Kerry, but I do want to see Bush defeated, and with results like this it looks more and more like it's going to happen.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040610/pl_nm/campaign_poll_dc

You damn liberals, you only quote polls when they're in your favor.
/Trav :D

Bush has got serious problems and honestly, I think he brought them all upon himself. I don't care who wins because I don't see one as being that much better than the other, but that's why Bush is having problems - people like me that voted for him once aren't going to do it a second time.

Allow me to be sceptical about the LA Times and their political motives. It appears they are showing the largest lead for Kerry...

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8421

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

This is 50 to 44. Only a 1% difference. But yes, they are giving John Kerry a large, large lead against Bush.

Ok only 6% undecided? I believe that is low but I could be wrong. If the undecided vote for Nader or Bush then it will be closer still. If Kerry is elected it will be a one term Presidency only becuase this is the worst time to step in. If the WMD's are found after Kerry wins then the Republicans will say told you so, and a renwed interest in the RNC will arise.
If Kerry gets bogged down in Iraq then he will be blamed and not be re elected.

If it was me I wouldnt have run now, but waited for 2008 and then run. Most likely whoever wins the Dem nomination will win the White House in 2008, history says so.

You know what BV, I’m one of those people who were against the “WMD evidence” as I’ve shown you. Yet, most “liberals” or the ones I’ve talked to aren’t mad about that, they are mad at the management of the war. That is their prime concern, and disgust of the presidency. So if they do find WMD’s, or enough to justify all of the CLAIMS President Bush made, then I’ll say we should be in Iraq. But I’ll never forgive President Bush, nor will I support a war he has mismanaged so badly.

I understand your comments about Bush, but to not support a war that was mismanaged is lacking in judgement. If it is proven that Hussein was the threat Bush said he was then the war should be supported no matter how poorly you feel it was managed.
Anyway back to the thread topic, it is a win lose situation for Kerry. Ever wonder why the strongest Dems stayed out of the run this time? Because they know it is the wrong time.

Yes, I will not support a war, which is not making us safer. We are supposed to be “safer” that Saddam is gone, and that isn’t the case. So far, this “war” isn’t holding true to it’s original intent.

Your choice. :bombout:

Yep it is my choice, and I won't support it, so deal with it.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yep it is my choice, and I won't support it, so deal with it.
Why do I have to deal with it?
Dont accept it, but just because you dont doesnt mean it will go away............ So deal with that :D

Again, deal with it.
I'm not supporting a war that is in return making my country less safe.

Originally posted by Overdose
Again, deal with it.
I'm not supporting a war that is in return making my country less safe.
LMAO


:rolleyes:

Good reply, BV. I always love a good laugh.

Originally posted by Overdose
Good reply, BV. I always love a good laugh.
If you knew why I was laughing....... Not becuase what you said or becuase I didnt have anything else to say, but because you are so close minded that you SOUND almost like a tape recorder.
Saying you dont support or recognize something doesnt make it stop.

Power in numbers, BV. If a large majority don’t support something, it is usually shut down. That is how the Vietnam war ended, because of the strong opposition….

Well that only took 17 years to stop by ignoring it.
So you have about 15 years to go........

Anyone read Drudge today where he posted how the people polled were not an accurate slice of mainstream America? The LA Slimes polled 38% Democrats and 25% Republicans while the rest were neither party. No wonder Kerry had a 7% lead. Can anyone say BIAS?

Ahh yes, blame the people who were polled, even though all news sources gave Kerry at least a 6 point lead. Hahaha…

Originally posted by Overdose
Ahh yes, blame the people who were polled, even though all news sources gave Kerry at least a 6 point lead. Hahaha…
OD did the exit polls work in 2000? NOPE, polls have a plus minus from 3-6 % and not all the polls showed Kerry at 6% some showed him at 3%.
Polls are nothing more than a guideline, none have ever been close to predicting an election except maybe McGovern or Mondale... and that was easy to see that they were going to be defeated.
Also look at the absence of high level Dems in the Primaries, could be a sign that they dont think it was wise to run.

I’m not saying they are accurate, nor if they work or not.
But it does feel good, when your candidate is at least up by 6%.
The Right-Wing can call it Bias all they want, but that’s just because it shows Bush down…but when it shows him ahead, like when it showed the 80% approval rate, you never heard them shouting "It's BIAS! 80% of people don't support Bush!"

Your candidate is up in a poll by 7% when there were 13% more Democrats than Republicans polled. What does that tell you? Even the playing field and Kerry's lead goes to zero!

If you look on CNN it shows the exact numbers of who was polled. It does not say 13% more Dems were polled.

But the Right-Wing will say that that is true, because it will make Kerry's lead seem false...

You know what OD, a relative of mine founded the LA times, so I guess I must be a liberal.

:D

My whole mom's side was Right-Wing...
So I guess I must be Republican.

Originally posted by Overdose
If you look on CNN it shows the exact numbers of who was polled. It does not say 13% more Dems were polled.

But the Right-Wing will say that that is true, because it will make Kerry's lead seem false...

Hrmm...simple math.

38% Dems - 25% Repubs = 13% difference

Even it out so that there are an equal number of Dems and Repubs and you get 31.5% Dems and 31.5% Repubs.

That 6.5% shift from left to right all votes for Bush then Bush has a 6% lead...but I decidedto be fair and say the poll goes to zero when you factor in the margin of error and not all may vote for Bush.

And you know they are a 13% difference how? I've yet to see the link.

Originally posted by Overdose
And you know they are a 13% difference how? I've yet to see the link.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...

That was on that poll
CNN, MSNBC, etc. also show Kerry up by at least 6%.

Originally posted by Overdose
That was on that poll
CNN, MSNBC, etc. also show Kerry up by at least 6%.

OK...but I was not talking about those polls was I? I was talking about the BIAS in the LA Times poll. And those polls did not show atleast 6% it was at most 6%...the LA Times biased poll was the highest.

Kerry still has a 6 to 7 point lead.
Deal with it.

Originally posted by Overdose
Kerry still has a 6 to 7 point lead.
Deal with it.

If you think so that is fine. AP-Ipsos has Bush up by 1%.

Heard Kerry's speech at the AFL-CIO convention.
Boy, he covered it all. Santa Clause in a business suit.
He was the typical politician, promised everything lower taxes for the middle class, insurance, strong military, chicken in every pot type speech.
I just wish that, if elected, candidates could be legally held responsible for their promises.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Heard Kerry's speech at the AFL-CIO convention.
Boy, he covered it all. Santa Clause in a business suit.
He was the typical politician, promised everything lower taxes for the middle class, insurance, strong military, chicken in every pot type speech.
I just wish that, if elected, candidates could be legally held responsible for their promises.

Kerry is promising everyone everything...at some point he is going to have to outline how he plans to pay for it. My bet is he does what he always has...raise taxes.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Heard Kerry's speech at the AFL-CIO convention.
Boy, he covered it all. Santa Clause in a business suit.
He was the typical politician, promised everything lower taxes for the middle class, insurance, strong military, chicken in every pot type speech.
I just wish that, if elected, candidates could be legally held responsible for their promises.


lol. what is funny is how everyone is mad about bush and thinks that kerry is going to do a great job. With the promises he has made to organizations and supporters, he will raise taxes ridiculously high and take them not only from the top 1%(like he has been said), but from the middle class too. thanks, kerry

Originally posted by no moore please
he will raise taxes ridiculously high and take them not only from the top 1%(like he has been said), but from the middle class too. thanks, kerry

Republican's lie and say that Kerry will raise taxes “ridiculously” high. I don’t really remember him ever saying that in the speech I went to, or in any ads I’ve seen. Actually in one of his ads he refuted the ad that Bush made, that said he wanted to increase taxes. Do some research, and don’t listen to the republican lies.

Originally posted by Overdose
Republican's lie and say that Kerry will raise taxes “ridiculously” high. I don’t really remember him ever saying that in the speech I went to, or in any ads I’ve seen. Actually in one of his ads he refuted the ad that Bush made, that said he wanted to increase taxes. Do some research, and don’t listen to the republican lies.

Since you went to one of his speaches how did he propose to pay for all the promises he is making to everyone and anyone? Or is he just going to rack up the national debt a little more?

Originally posted by Overdose
Republican's lie and say that Kerry will raise taxes “ridiculously” high. I don’t really remember him ever saying that in the speech I went to, or in any ads I’ve seen. Actually in one of his ads he refuted the ad that Bush made, that said he wanted to increase taxes. Do some research, and don’t listen to the republican lies.


Well for example: today in columbus, he gave a speech saying that we need to have schools open until the evening for working parents. A great idea. it keeps kids out of trouble and lets them do something good.
Just a one problem:
it will cost 10 billion over the next 10 years

when asked how he is going to pay for it he replied, "By taxing the top 1%". Let's be realistic here, with all the things he wants to do to improve healthcare, etc. there is no way taxing only the top 1% will pay for it. I know that the right lies, but so does the left. That is politics. I know that this is a great idea, but there just isn't money for it. We are still in a war no matter what president gets picked and our money will be going there for years to come. Overdose, you are making it seem like only the right side feeds lies to you. The kerry campaign knows that it won't be able to do all of this with just the top 1% getting taxed, but they tell you they will.

Also, i do not want to get into matches seeing who can insult the other one more. that isn't the point. the point is to debate poltics with you and hopefully see both sides of the issue from both liberal and conservative standpoints. it is childish to insult me by saying i believe republican lies.

There is no way that taxing the 1% will pay for it? Maybe you should do some research, because it actually, could pay for it. Kerry never said he was going to tax the middle class, which is what you organically stated.

1%= 1.1 million workes at all levels, upper it would be closer to 250k people footing the bill on 10 billion?
Glad your not my accountant.

:lolhit:

Do you not know how much the 1% make?

do the math............. 10 billion is 10 thousand million, so if we figure that 250k are paying that bill......
Thats 40k in additional taxes. So the 1% wont have 40k extra to spend and the economy will slowly tank.
Dont take my word for it, go look up the works of Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning Economist.

Originally posted by Overdose
There is no way that taxing the 1% will pay for it? Maybe you should do some research, because it actually, could pay for it. Kerry never said he was going to tax the middle class, which is what you organically stated.

yet again your numbers are wrong. this is just one of the small things he wants to do and it costs 10 billion. if he wants to do five other things...God knows who will be taxed.

I know that he has said that he will not tax the middle class, but with all the programs and spending he wants to do, he will have to. like the veteran said, on kerry's plan, not only will the top 1% get taxed, but a majority of the middle class.

this whole situation is another one of kewrry's problems. he should try to make realistic changes than promises to people that will be impossible to keep

Originally posted by no moore please
yet again your numbers are wrong. this is just one of the small things he wants to do and it costs 10 billion. if he wants to do five other things...God knows who will be taxed.

I know that he has said that he will not tax the middle class, but with all the programs and spending he wants to do, he will have to. like the veteran said, on kerry's plan, not only will the top 1% get taxed, but a majority of the middle class.

this whole situation is another one of kewrry's problems. he should try to make realistic changes than promises to people that will be impossible to keep
I believe when Bush 41 said almost the same thing it was tagged Voodoonomics.
We need a name for this one as well.
ANy Ideas?

Originally posted by no moore please

like the veteran said, on kerry's plan, not only will the top 1% get taxed, but a majority of the middle class.


The middle class, I highly doubt, will be taxed.

Originally posted by Overdose
The middle class, I highly doubt, will be taxed.


hopefully not, but i am realistic and fear that it will happen. my poor parents!!!

Kerry released an ad, that refuted Bush’s accusations that he was going to raise taxes, for the middle class.

Originally posted by Overdose
Kerry released an ad, that refuted Bush’s accusations that he was going to raise taxes, for the middle class.

i understand what you are saying, but the game is politics and it is dirty. all of them make promises. look at bush sr. saying no more taxes. he had to add more because of reagans tax cuts and the changes happening in the economy. i highly doubt that 1% can pay for all of this. no offense overdose, but i think that the numbers just wont add up. i am sure beirut_veteran has some numbers to show:p

John Kerry has stated many times that he does not want to get rid of the middle class tax cuts. The middle class tax cuts were made law by democrats and republicans. John Kerry helped fight for those tax cuts. Why would he want to remove them? Howard Dean wanted to get rid of the tax cuts. So did Dick Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol MB. Wes Clark had a progressive taxation plan that gave the middle class even larger tax cuts.

Originally posted by Idioteque
John Kerry has stated many times that he does not want to get rid of the middle class tax cuts. The middle class tax cuts were made law by democrats and republicans. John Kerry helped fight for those tax cuts. Why would he want to remove them? Howard Dean wanted to get rid of the tax cuts. So did Dick Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol MB. Wes Clark had a progressive taxation plan that gave the middle class even larger tax cuts.

but you guys arent answering my question. he say he doesnt want to, but does that mkean it wont happen. no. either he is going to tax people more or he is going to have to not do all the things he wants to do. i know that there will be more taxes and that is a reason i dont like kerry

You don’t “know” anything, he has made it clear he does not want to tax the middle class. But that he does want to tax the upper 1%.

So I don’t really understand your question.

Originally posted by Overdose
You don’t “know” anything, he has made it clear he does not want to tax the middle class. But that he does want to tax the upper 1%.

So I don’t really understand your question.

i know that he has promised improving things and giving money to certain porgrams. when you add up the numbers they just dont make sense. that is all i am saying. i dont know if he will do it all, but i know for sure that either he will raise taxes or he will cut programs that he has promised

I think Kerry will be much better at managing our money situation…
Bush’s deficits will eventually give us a 7 trillion deficit.

Originally posted by Overdose
I think Kerry will be much better at managing our money situation…
Bush’s deficits will eventually give us a 7 trillion deficit.

i disagree. with both the war and the additions of things kerry wants, the deficit will go up or the programs will be cut or he will tax the middle class or a little of all of them

The reason the deficit is so high is because he giving the top 1% a tax break. Plus, contrary to what others think, I believe that we went into Iraq, without proper world support, backing us up. So that in return lead to us having huge deficits.

Originally posted by Overdose
The reason the deficit is so high is because he giving the top 1% a tax break. Plus, contrary to what others think, I believe that we went into Iraq, without proper world support, backing us up. So that in return lead to us having huge deficits.

the thing you said about the deficit is the funniest thing i have heard all day.....maybe the 87 billion dollar war we have to fight to protect our homeland?

The war in Iraq isn't "protecting our homeland". We didn't HAVE TO go. This war was optional. The 87 billion is 87 billion wasted.

Protect our homeland? You mean the war that is giving us a 90% chance of an attack on our homeland? Increasing the membership to Al Queda members? The war that has ruined our name worldwide because of the prisoner abuse?

Or the fact that the majority of Americans are still in great fear of another attack? Or the war that was presented because of the WMD threat, when in reality, all UN inspectors said he had no weapons, and we had no evidence to justify our war? Or the war that has no link to 9/11, as shown by the 9/11 panels. Or the war that is supposed to bring democracy to Iraq, while the officials that are going to lead their country to a democracy are being shot and killed weekly? While the majority of Iraqis want America out of Iraq, and have nothing but disgust for President Bush, as shown in the polls?

Oh yes, that war...

Kerry promising no tax increases on middle America is meaningless. Look at his record in the Senate...he is a tax and spend liberal and always has. What makes anyone think 10 months on the campaign trail will make him change? Besides G.H. Bush promised no taxes as well...remember his famous line during the 1998 campaign? "Read my lips. No New taxes!" Yeah well that one didn't turn out that way. Kerry is going to need to pay for his promises some way and that is going to mean higher taxes or higher deficits...pick your poison.

Originally posted by Overdose
Protect our homeland? You mean the war that is giving us a 90% chance of an attack on our homeland? Increasing the membership to Al Queda members? The war that has ruined our name worldwide because of the prisoner abuse?

Or the fact that the majority of Americans are still in great fear of another attack? Or the war that was presented because of the WMD threat, when in reality, all UN inspectors said he had no weapons, and we had no evidence to justify our war? Or the war that has no link to 9/11, as shown by the 9/11 panels. Or the war that is supposed to bring democracy to Iraq, while the officials that are going to lead their country to a democracy are being shot and killed weekly? While the majority of Iraqis want America out of Iraq, and have nothing but disgust for President Bush, as shown in the polls?

Oh yes, that war...
Nope not that war, this war.......

Sorry for posting an article but you missed it before.




CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - A leader of militants in Iraq has purportedly written to Osama bin Laden saying his fighters are being squeezed by U.S.-led coalition troops, according to a statement posted Monday on Islamic Web sites.


Titled "The text of al-Zarqawi's message to Osama bin Laden about holy war in Iraq," the statement appeared on Web sites that have recently carried claims of responsibility for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."

The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country "four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan." It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005.

It also says insurgents are planning to intensify attacks on Iraqi soldiers and police, seen as collaborators with the U.S.-led coalition. Calling Iraqi forces "the occupier's eye, ear and hand," the statement says: "We are planning on targeting them heavily in the coming stage before they are fully in control."

U.S. authorities believe al-Zarqawi runs his own terrorist operation but is an ally of bin Laden, whose al-Qaida network orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The nine-page statement was longer than previous ones from al-Zarqawi, and uses classical Arabic language and poetry typical of militant leaders.

Seems to me that Zarqawi is worried about the US and is being hurt by the war that isnt making us safer.......
Ooooppppssss... Maybe it is........

According to NPR this morning Bush has returned to having a slight lead.

According to the recent polls, Bush has a slight lead over John Kerry. So today, Bush hung a banner on the White House saying, 'Mission Accomplished.'"- David Letterman

Originally posted by LionelHutz
According to NPR this morning Bush has returned to having a slight lead.
Until Kerry changes his attack on the economy he will gain more. People see this as a poor choice to attack on as the economy is getting better everyday.
Also I think people are sick of both and will slowly swing to the known over the unknown.

Kerry taxing the only the rich, huh?
Well lets see let's just add up how much money he spent on all 6 NON-FOREIGN homes alone. What's that? Only 37 million dollars?
Class war-fare is wrong, but so is being a hypocrite. Raising income taxes on the rich? Do you think he's going to pay that?
I think Ol' Johnny is just going to make it harder for you to get rich my friends.



Also, trying to determine who will win by polling at this point is useless. I don't know about you but personally I'm already tired of this election and we have what 5 more months of this left/right battle royale?

Another thing, the media, and all of these polling resources are slightly biased as well, I'm not saying that they are completely "Inaccurate" but to poll at this point to me is a waste of time.

Originally posted by FiveThumbsMcGee
Kerry taxing the only the rich, huh?
Well lets see let's just add up how much money he spent on all 6 NON-FOREIGN homes alone. What's that? Only 37 million dollars?
Class war-fare is wrong, but so is being a hypocrite. Raising income taxes on the rich? Do you think he's going to pay that?
I think Ol' Johnny is just going to make it harder for you to get rich my friends.


Actually I do think he will pay that…why would he not? To attack him for being rich is utterly pointless. Ronald Reagan was extremely rich. As was many other Presidents we have. Saying he is a hypocrite, because he has a lot of homes, proving he is rich, is false. He has a lot of homes, but is for taxing the rich. He understands it is not fair that the rich get a tax break, when the middle class doesn’t. Not everyone is in it “for themselves”, FivethumbsMcGee.


Originally posted by FiveThumbsMcGee

Another thing, the media, and all of these polling resources are slightly biased as well, I'm not saying that they are completely "Inaccurate" but to poll at this point to me is a waste of time.

While a lot of media sources are bias, and “inaccurate”, the majority, all say Kerry leads Bush by at least 6%.

OD, according to the latest polls, Bush has a 3% margin....

There we go...