Hey Max: Bush back on top of polls!

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

He's beating Kerry by two points in this poll despite all his "troubles".

What does that say about Kerry?

[Miss Modular]

That doesn't mean he'll win.

[Buffalo Tom]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

He's beating Kerry by two points in this poll despite all his "troubles".

What does that say about Kerry?

What does it say about Dubya's presidency that you are trumpeting his 2% advantage in pre-election polling?

[mburbank]

That he's nowhere near as strong a candidate as I'd like and that he's afraid and tentative about making a stand. Here's the thing though, he's still the lesser of two evils.

2 points is well within the statistical margin of error.

What does it say about W that as an incumbent president during 'wartime' he can't do better than half?

[Ronnie Raygun]

I don't think this can be compared to other wartime presidential races.

Never before has a sitting president been attacked as much as Bush has been attacked much less during war time.

You have to admit that Bush is taking it pretty well.

I think if it were Bush vs. Dean I might have something to worry about.....maybe.

I just can't see Kerry winning....especially with the way the economy improving at the rate that it is.

[The One and Only...]

Are you kidding me? Bush vs. Dean would be giving the Republicans a free pass.

[Ronnie Raygun]

You can't tell me that Kerry is a stronger candidate for democrats than Dean would be.

I think Kerry is extremely weak....

At least Dean is honest and isn't afraid to say what he really stands for.

I'd like to know how many people here agree with that....

[kahljorn]

When I see ronnie posting.. i get like this total mental image of him walking down whatever town he lives in, then he sees the newstand or news box and the artical says, "BUSH DOES STUFF" then all of a sudden he charges to the nearest computer knocking over trashcans and fruit stands in his fiery urge to prove how right his thinking is.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kerry is stronger because he won the broader base of support. The Anybody but Bushers wanted Dean, but they'll settle for anybody (hence the name). Gephardt had the labor support, and that got him nowhere, even in dense labor states. Lieberman is a Jew who comes across as too morally conservative. Dean seemed to "radical"for your middle-class, professional, liberal Democrat type. Kucinich the same, just worse. Clarke lacked substance, and Edwards wasn't much better in that department.

Kerry was the best choice for Democrats. Not necessarily for those who supported the various issues touted by the other candidates, but I digress....

[Ronnie Raygun]

Kevin, do you think Dean would be in better shape right now against Bush?

With his stance sgainst the war.....I don't see how he wouldn't be,

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Dean couldn't continue to run against the war without an exit strategy. Bush's presumptive plan would have our soldiers home sooner than Kerry's, me thinks. But I think a broader base of Americans understand that even though you may have opposed the war, you can still see reason in supporting the occupation. We broke it, now it's ours. I think even Dean has accepted this stance, and he has thrown his full support behind Kerry, who essentially holds this stance. I don't know that Dean's would be any different, were he the candidate......

[Ronnie Raygun]

Dean still had more credibility with democrats never having supported the war. Dean would also give democrats something to be excited about....

Kerry isn't doing that....that's why you hear democrats talking about McCain being a part of Kerry's administration....because Kerry can't make it on his own.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Dean still had more credibility with democrats never having supported the war. Dean would also give democrats something to be excited about....

I think you're right on both counts, but I think Dean is a less seasoned politician than Kerry. Kerry can take the hits, and he can dish them out. Dean was nearly in melt down by the end.

Believe me, this is the way the Democratic leadership prefers it. Kerry the candidate, Dean the activist. Electoral politics aside, I prefered Dean, and migt have supported him. But liking someone and comparing electability are two different things. The same crowd that opposed the war wants the guy who started that war out of office, REALLY bad. They will support Kerry just as strongly as Dean. The ABB crowd is very strong.....

Kerry isn't doing that....that's why you hear democrats talking about McCain being a part of Kerry's administration....because Kerry can't make it on his own.

There are a lot of reasons McCain would be a dream for them, and none have to do with Kerry's energy, as compared to Dean's.

McCain would all but guarantee them Arizona, a key state. McCain is IMMENSELY popular with the moderate/centrist, "undecided" voter. He's got integrity, he's a reformer, and he's a devout Conservative. He, like Kerry, is a war veteran. Like some Dem. consultants have recently phrased it, it'd be the electoral equivalent of the Yankees trading for A-Rod. Biden said it'd be like a parliamentary "Unity Government" (this would of course would never work in our system, but sentimental crap like this would score major votes, which is the unfortunate name of the game). McCain would steal votes away from Bush, he'd be like a third party candidate on the Democratic ticket.

Electorally speaking, it'd be amazing for the Democrats. But it won't be happening, thankfully......

[mburbank]

Would I have prefered Dean? Sure. But Dean isn't the candidate so I'm not sure what we're talking about.

And Dean wouldn't have had much of a chance of getting disgruntled moderate Republicans to vote for him. You probably think they'd never vote for Kerry, either. I think you might end up being surprised.