Likely not, but who can say for sure? The point, IMO, isn't so much the numbers, it's that, for the frst time, Kerry and his campaign are getting attention and generating enthusiasm in their own right, as opposed to being 'other than Bush'. People have been remarking long and loud about the seeming discrepancy between Bush's very low approval rates and the lack of seperation between kerry and bush, and that has been largley due to the fact that kerry remained largely in Bush's shadow. For the first time, he's standing in his own light...and for the first time, we see some seperation. Could mean nothing, sure. but could also mean that the low appoval rate will now not be the only factor working against Bush.
So when Clinton's numbers fell and Bush's rose in the aftermath of the Republican Convention in 1992, that meant that the Clinton campaign did something wrong between their convention and the Republican convention? Something they corrected very quickly since that Bush Bounce disappeared fairly quickly. I think you're putting too much faith in people making rational choices in the aftermath of a major announcement. Since we see this bump EVERY TIME a candidate announces a vice presidential candidate, the likely explanation is that the bump isn't significant, it's just something that happens. I think Kerry is going to win this election in the Fall, but he's going to be behind in the polls in early September (or at least dropping while Bush gets a post-convention bounce) because that happens every time just like these bounces happen every time. I just don't think you can call this one out as being significant when they happen every time no matter what.
I don't like to post polls, though I do believe them to be an accurate presentation of how people feel, of course that doesn't gurantee that they'll feel the same way in November. What I find hilarious is that the same people who jump all over a poll when it's positive for Bush completely trash this one.
History is on mrpaige's side. He is not being argumentative, he is being honest. To argue with him is just being argumentative.
I don't jump all over any poll when it's positive for Bush. But I guess I will now. When Bush gets his post-convention bounce, I'll come on here and talk all about how it means that people are supporting the President's message. And then Kerry supporters will say "That poll doesn't mean anything. It's just the post-convention bounce that everyone gets." I mean, why break tradition on how political arguments often go? Personally, I think polls can be significant, but only when they differ from history. When everyone gets a VP announcement bounce, you can't possibly say that this one is significant when none of the others were. When everyone gets a post-convention bounce, when it happens again this year, it won't mean anything. Now, if Bush doesn't get a post-convention bounce, I would say that was significant. Or if the Edwards announcement didn't result in a bounce, I would've thought it potentially significant. It's only where the polls differ from history that it becomes potentially meaningful.
Well, since I don't pay any attention to T_J's posts most of the time, I was under the impression I was the only one downplaying the poll.
TJ, though I disagree with you often politically, I am worried about your mental health. Will you kill yourself if Bush loses? The sheer desperation and denial evidenced in your posts, if the news reflects poorly on Bush's reelection chances, make me wonder that you may not be prepared to carry on if Bush loses. Please try to understand that America will survive if Bush loses, business will still be done, we won't be invaded by marauading Arabs, you will still have a job acccounting for corporate money. In short, life can go on for you.
And the same goes for all of the anti-Bush doomsday analyst if John Kerry loses in the all important number of electoral college votes
WTF! Was it the smirk? The arrogance? The defense and oil monies up to his armpits? I would normally not speak for God, but heck, my president does so why not? God will NOT forgive you, MadBeth!
At first I thought you were talking ABOUT MacBeth. But I'm not aware of any defense or oil money he's attached to...
I saw a reminder recently that at about this stage Dukakis was 14 pts up on the other President Bush. New is attractive but it's not always the ultimate choice.
Now I'm trying to be even-handed here, but I agree totally with RMT. Polls do not mean squat until after the conventions. Most people won't start paying attention until then anyhow. MacB, it is July! But I think people really read too much into the choice for running mate. Just pick someone competent who won't totally flub things while campaigning (Quayle being a solid example of whom not to pick). It can either hurt you (Quayle) or not help at all (Gore, Bush, anybody for that matter). Personally, I think that from the policy experience frame, either Lieberman (not likely) or Gephardt would have made a better choice. Edwards to me (this is the coldly neutral person, not the politico speaking) is a poor choice because of his laughable level of experience. Quayle had more service in govt. than Edwards does at this point in his career! Edwards has no chance of picking up the Southern vote (he couldn't even carry his home state in the primaries) and he does nothing but give Kerry's leftist leanings a Southern accent.
Try applying some of that "cold logic" and examine how much experience George W. Bush had before squeaking into office. I would be willing to bet that Edwards has had more meetings with different foreign politicos during his 6 years in the Senate that W. dreamed about as governor. Edwards also has something on his resume Bush doesn't have. He's been an extremely successful businessman. Hey, when you get down to it, Edwards is as qualified as he needs to be to become VP or ascend to the Presidency. All you have to do is compare him to Bush. Not George H. W. Bush, who was immensely qualified, but the man's son. By the way, I haven't seen any comparisons to Dan Quayle anywhere but right here, from you. But I imagine Drudge will drudge up a comparison between the two men soon enough.
EDIT: I was thinking of South Carolina, where he was born. Not really fair to call him out on not carrying his home state when the race was already decided by the time North Carolina had its primary.
"The only foreign experience George Bush had before he took office was going to a Texas Rangers , Toronto Blue Jays baseball game." Former Clinton aide on CNN today.
