2004 Presidential election not even close!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Maverick74


    Wow! This is ugly! I have to admit, even I wasn't expecting to see such a big lead this early. Absolutely amazing. This is going to be a cakewalk. I guess I should send the Clintons a Christmas card this year for ruining the democratic party. LOL.

    TIMECNN POLL: Most Registered Voters Would Choose Bush
    Fri Nov 21 2003 19:44:24 ET

    New York – If the 2004 Presidential election was held today, registered voters surveyed for TIME/CNN would choose President George W. Bush over any of the declared Democratic candidates.

    In a direct run against Bush, Gen. Wesley Clark fares the best among registered voters (Clark 42%, Bush 49%), closely followed by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (Kerry 41%, Bush 49%).

    Bush would beat any of three other Democrats, 52 percent to 39 percent, in a direct match: Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, or Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Against Bush, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would lose, 38 percent to 52 percent.

    When registered Democrats are asked which Democratic presidential nominee they would vote for, Dean edges out Clark 14 percent to 12 percent, followed Lieberman (11%), Kerry (9%), Gephardt (6%), then Edwards and the Rev. Al Sharpton (5%).

    The TIME/CNN Poll, conducted November 18-19, 2003 by HarrisInteractive, surveyed 1,330 registered voters by telephone. The margin of error is +/-2.7% points for registered voters, and +/-4.7% for Democratic voters surveyed for TIME/CNN.
  2. It is going to be a Reagan-esque landslide. Leading up to the election the liberal press will make it look closer than it really is, and the polls will reflect a close race, but that is only because the liberal press and pollsters only talk to their bosom buddies when doing their background work.

    I would think this is all quite bullish for 2004 ...
  3. Perhaps you haven't noticed that no third party candidates have come on the scene to dilute the vote. Don't count your chicken hawks before they hatch.:D
  4. What amazes me is that it really is understood that the best that the third party could do is help one of the other major parties in the race. They do have their own loyalty factor, but the conditions necessary for them to win THE LARGE ONE never exist. :)

  5. Well, unless the next Ross Perot starts making some noise soon, I think the only significant third party dilution effect is going to be the greens diluting the dems.
  6. More wishfull thinking.:D
  7. i predict bush will be re-elected.

    i voted for him last time, but this time i'm voting libertarian...whoever the hell that will be.
  8. Bolts


    Good god, what is wrong with this country. :(

    Well, I still think Clark could sneak into the lead. He seems the least hysterical/melodramatic/silly of the bunch.
  9. Does CATO do direct endorsments of presidential candidates?
    Who'd they endorse last election? I picked the lesser of two evils last time, and voted for Bush . This time, I'm not sure I'll be in the mood to pick between two unqualified guys- and I'll prob just end up voting Libertarian as well.
  10. Maverick74


    I think what makes these poll results even more impressive is like you said, the 3rd party candidate factor. The greens and the libertarians are going to hurt the democratic party even more. maybe another 5 to 7 pts. Which would put the Bush lead over Dean close to 20 pts!!!!! And let's face it guys, as of now, Dean is the heavy heavy favorite to win the nomination. If Nader gets in again and pulls in the same number of votes as the last election, well I hate to say this, but we might be looking at one of the biggest landslide wins in US history.

    Hillary Clinton could not be more happy right now. Because if she gets the landslide Bush re-election then she will come off looking even more like a savior in 2008. The Dems will be worshipping her.
    #10     Nov 22, 2003