« Weekend Debate Open Thread | Main | Open Thread »
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Kerry Notching Swing State Newspaper Endorsements
Posted by DavidNYCIn the early running, John Kerry has taken a sizable lead in garnerning daily newspaper editorial board endorsements. Circulation-wise, he's beating Bush by 5-1 so far. He's also picked up several big swing state papers recently: The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Portland (Maine) Herald-Press, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson, and the Oregonian of Portland, which supported Bush in 2000. (They aren't getting fooled again.) And previously, Kerry was endorsed by the Seattle Times (another Bush in 2K supporter) and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The only big swing state paper Bush has won over is the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Okay, sure, he's also gotten the endorsement of the Findlay, Ohio Courier... but I don't think Bush wants to be touting a paper that has fewer daily readers than, oh, MyDD.
Posted at 11:56 AM in General | Technorati
Comments
Think nothing of the Las Vegas Review Jounral's endorsement- they make no bones about their Republican allegiances (hell, one of their columnists wrote a book called "Bring in the Waco Killers" at the height of the Clinton bashing era.) The Las Vegas Sun (the Dem alternative paper) will most certainly endorse Kerry in the next week or so.
Posted by: wavyb at October 10, 2004 12:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Unfortuantely, I don't think many people are swayed by newspaper editorial endorsements. Didn't Bush's "home town" newspaper in Crawford endorse Kerry? How many folks in Crawford will now vote for Kerry as a result? Hell, most people don't even read the newspaper, and they're certainly not going to vote for a candidate because their newspaper's editorial board tells them to do so.
Posted by: pepe at October 10, 2004 12:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC;
You can censor me if you like, but I truly must again express my outrage at the negativity of Pepe, and question who he is really supporting for President. I think it's time to get behind our candidate, and make the final push to unseat Bush. BTW, how's that for a slogan, "The final push to unseat Bush..." Sorry, couldn't help myself...
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 10, 2004 05:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oh please! If you understood my post at all, you would also understand that the Las Vegas paper's endorsement of Bush is equally meaningless. Is NV lost because of the editors of the Las Vegas newspaper's endorsment of Bush? If you're so overly sensitive by my honest and impartial comments, perhaps you should avoid impartial sites like this one and go to a site that will only show what you want to read and believe so you can feel a lot better. Geesh!
Posted by: pepe at October 10, 2004 05:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry! Newspaper endorsements really dont mean anythingin national elections. It just confirms to me how liberal the nation's newspapers have become. Fox News is needed more than ever to keep things Fair & Balanced.
Posted by: WistheOne at October 10, 2004 06:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Although it's nice to have big circulation newspapers endorse John Kerry, I'm gonna have to agree with Pepe. A paper's endorsement of a candidate will change few minds, if any. The Washington Post always endorses the Democrat, but Virginia keeps going Republican.
Posted by: Dale at October 10, 2004 06:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree, Fox is important. Personally, I can't stand watching them, but my loyalty has been to CNN since the beginning. Everyone talks about how biased Fox is, but like all mainstream media the drive for a big story trumps bias. I saw O'Reilly on the Daily Show the other day, and I don't even mind him anymore.
Posted by: Brett at October 10, 2004 06:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oh, i'm sorry. I must be mistaken because I thought this site was to analyze and promote Democractic Party success in 2004 swing states. Sorry, Pepe. Guess I must be stupid. Better register as a Republican!!!
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 10, 2004 06:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oh, i'm sorry. I must be mistaken because I thought this site was to analyze and promote Democractic Party success in 2004 swing states. Sorry, Pepe. Guess I must be stupid.
Well, you are mistaken then! Obviously, you don't understand the purpose of this site any more than you do any of my posts. Glad to know that it's not just me you don't understand. Just to enlighten you, Pepe Hater, here is a direct quote from the creator of this site, DavidNYC:
I am a lifelong Democrat, but my hope is that the analysis on this site is free from partisan favoritism. That is to say, I plan to examine all relevant issues rigorously, whether or not they favor Democrats.
I hope this helps you understand the purpose of this site. It's about examining the direction and the momentum of the campaign while keeping it free of partisan favoritism. This site is not "to analyze and promote Democractic Party success in 2004 swing states" as you seem to think." You're missing the whole point of why DavidNYC created it!
I hope Kerry wins too, because I find the alternative unacceptable. That said, I will continue to view the campaign and the events surrounding it as objectively as possible. To conclude, if you want a biased site that is only to be a John Kerry cheerleader blindly praising everything he does and attacking everything Bush does, you're in the wrong place.
Posted by: pepe at October 10, 2004 07:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You're right generally about paper endorsements.
FWIW, Kerry has a shot at getting the Columbus Dispatch, which hasn't endorsed a Democrat since FDR I think. Don't know about the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I think Kerry will get the Dayton Daily News, but he can forget about the Cincinnati Enquier or Cincinnati Post. If Jesus were running and Bush both would still endorse Bush.
Posted by: pc at October 10, 2004 09:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Meant to say Jesus against Bush
Posted by: pc at October 10, 2004 09:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Poll question: Does Karl Rove have a cousin named Mason Dixon? Cause that poll is well to the Bush side of the other polls...
On the other side, I'm not buying Zogby's numbers on the southern states. I think Kerry is going to win. But the only southern state he has a real shot at is Florida...
Posted by: willis at October 10, 2004 11:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, the vast majority of people here are for Kerry. That's why we're tired of your incessant whining and your pessimistic opinions anytime something good is mentioned about Kerry.
I'm trying to remember if or when you've ever said something positive about Kerry or his chances of winning. I do believe that you want him to win, so you don't have to tell us that again.
The major newspaper endorsements for Kerry are great news. Whether people vote according to their newspaper's endorsement isn't the point, really. The point of a good editorial is to get the public to think about their options, and possibly to help the few who are still undecided make up their minds. They might even get some of the Bush supporters to reconsider their vote.
Posted by: Mark R at October 11, 2004 12:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You miss my point entirely. It doesn't matter which candidate a local newspaper endorses, it has little if any bearing on how people vote. This is especially true now that we are in an age where people get more news and views than they can handle right here on the internet. We can now access various news items and interpretations of them to help us make more informed decisions all on our own. I'll wager that most people won't even know which candidate their home town newspaper endorses, it's so insignificant.
Posted by: pepe at October 11, 2004 12:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe is correct here. Newspaper endorsements are important for less publicized races and ballot initiatives. But for the presidential race, there is so much information available that a newspaper endorsement really does not do much.
Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2004 01:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
what`s with these polls. zogby has kerry up 3 points in todays tracking poll but rasmussen has bush up 4 and abc 5.someone is wrong, although zogby seems to have the best track record.if youu believe zogby there is reason to hope if you go with the other guys it looks grim. any comments.
Posted by: jeremy at October 11, 2004 09:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Re polls, here are some links to the 2000 polls. At this stage of the game in 2000, the Gallup had Bush over Gore by 12 points:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=1216
http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2000/11/000015.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/tracking.poll/
Five days before the election Rasmussen had Bush up by seven. I know that website is about polls, so I'm not saying don't pay attention to them.
But do NOT let the polls lead you to believe anything other than this is a very close race. It will come down to the wire, no matter what the polls say.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 11, 2004 10:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I totally agree, with The Other Rob, that regardless of polls say, it's going to be close in terms of votes. However, I think it could be a blow out in terms of EVs. I think that, because I have a feeling that the majority of swing states will wind up voting for the same candidate, albeit by razor-thin margins.
Posted by: Pepe at October 11, 2004 10:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
How does Rasmussen weights its polls? I know zogby is D =39%, R=35%, I= 26%, Maybe rasmussen uses D=38%, R=36%??? does anybody know for sure?
Posted by: ed at October 11, 2004 10:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If Rasmussen uses the 38-36-26 formula, that might account for the discrepancy between them and zogby.
Posted by: ed at October 11, 2004 11:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Rasmussen must be allocating undecideds between the two candidates, otherwise I don't see how there can be so few undecideds in his poll.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 11, 2004 12:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jeez. This is ridiculous. A healthy debate in comments is what this site is supposed to engender - but please, creating this fake usernames which directly attack another member is not acceptable.
And I should add - I was going to note in my post that I don't think these endorsements mean all that much myself. But I still think they are good news, if only because they contribute to the narrative that Kerry is surging.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 11, 2004 12:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ramussen hasn't changed their numbers at all since the 1st debate, and we all know Kerry has gained. Ramussen and Gallup obviously both use biased samples that help them produce Republican leaning results. Too bad when people actually show up and vote on election day that they'll be dead wrong.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 11, 2004 12:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I remember Bush swept the newspaper endorsements in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati four years ago. If Kerry could get just one of the three this time, it would be a good psychological boost. As for my region of the country, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Des Moines Register are sure thing endorsements for Kerry. I'm not sure how Milwaukee's major newspaper leans. The swinger is the St. Paul Pioneer Press, which has positioned itself as a center-right alternative to the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the past 10 years after years of being left-leaning. Bush got the Pioneer Press's endorsement in 2000 and I'm inclined to believe he'll get it again....but I would be pleased as punch if Kerry could score that endorsement.
Posted by: Mark at October 11, 2004 01:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, DavidNYC. The attacks and fake usernames don't bother me in the least--they are quite juvenile, actually. I just consider the source and move on. It's just odd that people come to an impartial site like this and expect everyone to think and act like exactly the way do!
Posted by: Pepe at October 11, 2004 01:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
i just checked the final polls on the 2000 election on polling.com and abc, marist ,pew and gallup all showed bush winning by 2-6 points. the most accurate were zogby/msnbc and harris so i would keep an eye on those polls. seems like abc/wp favor republicans and rasmussen polls just don`t seem to make any sense.
Posted by: joel at October 11, 2004 01:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the pollsters goofed in 2000 by using the 1992 rep/dem split as a model, rather than 1996.
In 1992 there was a significant 3rd party candidate, which screwed up the split. If they haven't learned the errors of their ways and adjusted to the 1996 and 2000 model, their polls will be bad until the end.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 11, 2004 01:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
And we if we have far larger voter turnout than expected, I think we can safely throw out all polls, as we'll be in unchartered waters. Still, I can't see how record numbers of voters at the polls could benefit anyone but Kerry. It just comes down to will people vote now that they are registered. I sure hope so!
Posted by: Pepe at October 11, 2004 01:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For Democrats interested in a discussion of everything affecting this year's election, I hope you'll join us at democraticunderground.com - it's great!
Posted by: Mark R at October 11, 2004 02:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rasmussen has said they now weight by party ID after the 2000 debacle when their polls show bush +10 the day before the election. It would be nice to get the percentages they used, just so that we can re-weight their polls. Maybe a paid rasmussen subcriber can get the numbers.
Posted by: ted at October 11, 2004 02:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
FYI:
Due to http://www.electoral-vote.com being jammed up recently -- due to a combination of those of us who like the site recommending it to others and to the site's owner deciding that, given the complete inconsistency of different polls, he needed to start providing lots of different information in addition to his former map and Excel program -- I've poked around a little for similar websites to feed the monkey on my back (be honest -- most of you know that monkey all too well).
In this poking around, I found that CNN has a very nice map of advertising spending by the campaigns and by afilliated groups at
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/campaign.ads/
It gives a good overview of where the campaigns are bringing the fight.
Posted by: Marsden at October 11, 2004 02:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
a new gallup poll just came out showing kerry up 1 point with lv and 2 without nader.if gallup shows him up, he must really be up! found an astrological website www.starlightnews.com that sort of predicted this. check it out, sort of interesting. they are also saying bush will do well in the next debate and that kerry will win the election.who knows!!!!!seems to be anti bush astrologer so take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by: jeremy at October 11, 2004 03:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Tracking poll" normally refers to a sequence of repeated surveys of the same respondents. What such polls are good for is giving a clue about how opinions are changing over time. It should be understood that there is a constant sampling error; if you happen to get a sample that is skewed to one side, that tilt will tend to persist throughout the tracking poll. But constant sampling error is what you want in a tracking poll; if you took a whole new sample every day, you would bring in a new sampling error, and so small real changes from day to day would be undetectable.
A tracking poll forces respondents to focus on the race regularly and state a choice, which the general population does not have to do. This tends to freeze the respondents' views into place once the poll has been under way for a while, so later shifts in public opinion are somewhat muted in the tracking poll. Rasmussen's tracking poll started way back in the spring, and for all we know, many of their respondents may have settled on Bush back in May or June. The tracking polls of Zogby and ABC/Wash. Post just started at the beginning of October and their respondents will not have as much time to be locked in by the polling process itself.
Current non-tracking polls are more reliable than tracking polls at giving you today's snapshot.
Posted by: Jerome at October 11, 2004 03:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Marsden: Check out Race2004.net for a site similar to e-v.com.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 11, 2004 04:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jerome:
I believe you're incorrect. I believe tracking polls do take a whole new sample everyday. Do you have a link that proves otherwise?
Posted by: ed at October 11, 2004 04:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Things are looking up for Kerry. Even the Gallup poll has him ahead by 2% at this point, which is huge considering their Republican bias. Also, a couple of polls: ARG and Survey USA have Kerry +1 in Ohio. Florida isn't looking so good right now, probably because the President has left a good feeling with people after the hurricanes, but Ohio is starting to lean ever so slightly to Kerry.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 11, 2004 04:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here is the American Heritage definition for "tracking poll". It is certainly possible that Rasmussen and some other pollsters do not define it this way; if so, my assertions might not be right. Always be careful about believing what unknown persons post on the Internet :-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tracking+poll&r=67
tracking poll
n.
An opinion poll in which the same sample, such as a small number of voters, is questioned periodically to measure shifts in opinion.
Posted by: Jerome at October 11, 2004 05:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
does the abc/wp poll poll any democrats. their latest tracking has bush up 6 while gallup and zogby show kerry up. seems to be way out of whack.anyone know their methodology?it just doesn`t jive with the other recent polls.
Posted by: JAMES at October 11, 2004 05:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The internals for the abc/wp are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer
If you reweight this poll it's bush +1.3 not 6.
What's striking in this poll is that indies go for bush!
Posted by: ed at October 11, 2004 05:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Posted by: ed at October 11, 2004 05:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ramussen has a new poll from NJ with Kerry ahead by 11%, and MD Kerry ahead by 9%. The northeast is starting to fall into line like you'd expect it to.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 11, 2004 05:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ramussen has a new poll from NJ with Kerry ahead by 11%, and MD Kerry ahead by 9%. The northeast is starting to fall into line like you'd expect it to.
Now THAT'S more like it! Speaking of Rasmussen, they now have Burr ahead of Bowels by 2 percentage points for the open Senate seat vacated by John Edwards. The once huge lead Erskin enjoyed for most of the campaign has completely evaporated over the past two weeks. We are being bombarded with ads from both campaigns daily, and it looks like the race will be a toss up till Election Day. This would be a real upset if Burr were to defeat Bowels, as I don't think anyone expected this except maybe Burr's mama.
Posted by: pepe at October 11, 2004 07:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
bowles!!
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 11, 2004 07:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I disagree with people who don't think the newspaper endorsements are important.
It's not the endorsements themselves that
are important, it's what you can do with them.
If the Kerry campaign would open there eyes they would see the perfect Kerry ad is right here on this website.
In 2000 the following papers supported George Bush.
So why are they supporting John Kerry this year?
(list of papers)
Because THEY WONT GET FOOLED AGAIN!
This ad hits the most important issue in the campaign, TRUST. The campaign has never been
about issues, it's about character.
Bush's whole campaign is about J.K's character. He's a flip-flopper, he lied about Vietnam, he
doesn't understand the war on terrorism ...
This ad says don't take John Kerry's word when he tells you Bush has misled
the nation, these papers agree. It also tells people it's ok to admit that you were fooled
by Bush and to vote for Kerry.
Posted by: pollwatcher at October 11, 2004 08:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
LOL and blushing at the same time! Yes, I know it's BOWLES and not BOWELS--it's been a VERY long day! At least I can laugh at myself, though! My apologies to Erskin--for whom I'm also voting! BTW, I'm casting my vote next Monday to hopefully beat the crowds and long lines on Election Day.
Posted by: pepe at October 11, 2004 09:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here are my hunches on Ohio newspaper endorsements:
Columbus Dispatch - Kerry
Cleveland Plain Dealer - Kerry
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been very critical of Bush's folly in Iraq and I'm guessing that the Columbus Dispatch will follow suit with a Kerry endorsement.
I continue to reiterate that Kerry wins Ohio, unless there is some type of voting irregularity. (a rigged election) With Blackwell, a prominent Republican, who knows? He has already tried putting roadblocks in the way of Ohio voters.
CNN has been reporting a Kerry surge in Ohio and Iowa since the debates. If history is a guide, Ohio and NH will go for Kerry by identical percentages.
Kerry could win Ohio by 1 or 2 percent! I still believe that just enough Ohioans who voted for Bush in 2000 have soured on him to hand the state to Kerry this election day.
Posted by: Shar at October 11, 2004 09:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with pollwatcher that the newspaper endorsements are very important. They may not directly swing any votes in their area, but they sure can be used effectively by the campaign. They are also very encouraging to people like me who are working hard for the Kerry campaign and yearn for signs that we are being successful. If Kerry gets more than the usual number of endorsements he should play it to the hilt to make himself more acceptable to undecideds and to Repubs who don't want to vote for Bush and to encourage his own base. The "Fool me twice, shame on me" angle would be a great one to play.
Posted by: Pandy at October 11, 2004 09:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't think there is anything wrong with Pepe's logical posts either. FWIW, One newspaper endorsement that has been overlooked is the Lowell (MA) Sun's endorsement of Bush:
"We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell...."
http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105~4746~2442984,00.html
Posted by: webgirl at October 11, 2004 10:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
FWIW, I'm all for more realism and less cheerleading. The newspaper endorsements are nice but not going to win us any ground.
Here's a project someone should take on: gathering the party ID stats on newly-registered voters in swing states. Given that these people have just registered, we can pretty much tell who they are going to vote for (i.e., they won't be "Reagan Democrats").
Going to each of the state board of election sites and crunching the numbers could be very, very instructive.
Posted by: Flash at October 12, 2004 12:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
kerry may have peaked and bush may pass him unless the 3rd debate goes well for kerry.that nuisance comment that they are misquoting is going to hurt kerry.if i was kerry i would attack bush for insulting the people of mass. and maybe note how many died on 9-11 and in american wars. i just get the feeling the right wing is getting ready with another final attack on kerry that will hurt.
Posted by: jeremy at October 12, 2004 09:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think this election will be much like 2000. The polls now are extremely tight:
AP Kerry +4
Zogby Kerry +3
Gallup Kerry +1
Democracy Corp Kerry +1
ARG Kerry +1
CBS News Bush +1
Time Bush +1
Fox Bush +2
McLaughlin & Associates Bush +3
GWU Bush +3
Marist Bush +3
ABC News Bush +4
Working for Kerry: majority of undecided voters & Nader voters should break his way. One factor that skewed the 2000 polls was about half of the people who said they would vote Nader actually voted for Gore.
Working against Kerry: Bush's horrid debate will fade in the minds of voters by November 2.
Posted by: DFuller at October 12, 2004 10:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I continue to remain frustrated too at why the Kerry camp does not counterattack over the nuisance comment. The Bush camp has made an ad of it already, the Kerry camp needs to release an ad of Bush's statement earlier claiming the war could not be won. Furthermore Bush's statement is on camera, which is much more effective.
Posted by: erg at October 12, 2004 10:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry HAS released and ad with Bush's statement. It's playing in battleground states, and CNN is giving the same coverage it's giving the Bush ad. If you haven't seen it, go to JohnKerry.com and watch it.
Posted by: Dale at October 12, 2004 11:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I saw the ad -- great. A good way to counter distortions. [ Incidentally, I see a lot of the Bush ads despite being in NJ simply because they play a lot on cable channels -- CNBC, CNN etc.]
Some more news from NJ; Cheney visited NJ yesterday, Edwards did so 2-3 days back. It may be a head fake by Cheney, it may be intended for Pennsylvania (the meeting was in South NJ) or it may be for real.
FDU is coming out with another poll today. Lets see what happens.
Posted by: erg at October 12, 2004 11:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I totally agree withthe comment above. Let's not forget about the fact that the Republicans are bound to pull out all the dirty tricks over the next few weeks to take this thing and we've got to stop them. The trick that's getting to me most in the Republican bag is their continued help of Ralph Nader to get him on the ballot in major key swing states in order to as former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey said, "divide the liberal base." They've done everything from having Ken Sukhia, one of Bush's elections lawyers from the 2000 campaign, represent Nader in court in Florida to having the Michigan Republican party collect 40,000 signatures to get him on the ballot in Michigan. I know this was a bit off topic but it really annoys and angers me to see the lengths these Republicans will go to in order to take this election. In terms of Nader, they've been helping him get on the ballot in every battleground state. Please go to http://www.thenaderfactor.com/press/072304/ and check out what I mean. We've got to stop this before it's too late!
Posted by: Ace Parsi at October 12, 2004 11:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
New FDU poll out
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/bklead/
Kerry leads 48-43. (down from an 8 point lead last week). Note that the FDU poll has always had a bit of a Bush bias, showing a 2 point race msot of the year. The internals also are bad for Bush.
Posted by: erg at October 12, 2004 12:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Incidentally, MoE on FUD poll is rather high too -- 4.5 %.
Posted by: erg at October 12, 2004 12:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment