Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021

Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

TBD





















« New York Times Scoop: Families of Iraqi Terrorists are Very, Very Angry That We Fight and Arrest Them | Main | Giving a Shout-Out to Mu-Nu Angels »
June 01, 2004

Rasmussen Poll: 49% Would Consider Voting for Kerry

This poll is very interesting.

For some time everyone's been wondering: Since Bush's poll numbers have slipped so dramatically (and, for him, so dangerously), why isn't Kerry ahead in the polls?

Maybe this answers that question:

June 1, 2004--Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters say that they would consider voting for George W. Bush under certain circumstances. A Rasmussen Reports survey of 2,000 Likely Voters finds that 39% will not vote for the President under any circumstances.

As for Senator Kerry, 49% say they would consider voting for him while 39% definitely would not.

These results come at a time when the candidates have been locked in a dead heat for months. Ninety-one percent (91%) of those who would consider voting for Kerry already plan to vote for him. Just 3% of those who would consider Kerry are currently planning to vote for Bush.

However, just 81% of those who would consider voting for Bush are planning to vote for him at this time. Another 10% of these potential supporters are currently planning to vote for Kerry.

In other words, the more people who would consider voting for Kerry are already planning on voting for him.

Which is actually good news for Bush. He's got more upside. Kerry's getting 91% of those inclined to vote for him, while Bush is only getting 81% of those inclined to vote for him. Kerry can add another 9% of those inclined to vote for him, Bush double that. And a bigger absolute number of folks could possibly vote for Bush, too.

Plus, there's the obvious: If only 49% say they'd even consider voting for John Kerry, his ceiling can't be much higher than 49%. Yes, things could change, of course; but he'd need them to change. He can't easily win an election when, on his best possible day, he can only garner a minority of the votes. He could win, of course; but it's tricky.

Now here's a real shock that not only throws conventional wisdom out the window, it then jumps out the window as well in order to shout homophobic obsenities at conventional wisdom as it plunges to the street:

However, among those who are currently undecided, 64% would consider voting for Bush and 48% would consider voting for Kerry. These figures challenge the conventional wisdom that undecideds will break for the challenger.

For some time I've thought that Bush's low approval ratings might be indicative of voters' current sentiments -- "You're kinda screwing things up, George" -- but not actually indicative of their voting inclinations. I thought that because Kerry couldn't seem to gain on Bush even at the worst bad-news cycle of his Presidency. These findings would seem to be additional evidence for that.


posted by Ace at 04:24 PM
Comments



Well, it's kind of a goofy question because look at it this way: 49 percent say they would consider voting for Kerry. *But* only 39 percent say they wouldn't. So what about those other goofy 12 percent?

They would not consider it, nor would they *not* not consider it?

The 39 percent is much more telling and the two are tied. That is, if I say I wouldn't vote for somebody under any circumstances, that's a strong statement, much stronger than "I would under (unknown) circumstances."

I do think there's a little good news here in that underlying those numbers is the fact that Bush's last few points of drop have been, from much of the evidence, Republicans. Most of them will come back on election day if he gives them any excuse.

He was polling 90 percent of Republicans, now he's around 80.

Of course the margins are so thin it's hard to say much with certainty. And we've a ways to go.

Posted by: on June 1, 2004 04:45 PM

Bush MUST get the message of the economy and Saddam's al-Qaeda link out. The media will not do it for him. Bush MUST schedule one prime-time press conference a month for the next four months, and read a prepared statement stressing the nation's economic strength and Saddam's al-Qaeda ties.

If he does this effectively, he opens up a big gap over Kerry going into his convention. A good convention and a busy fall with lots of advertising and speeches will seal the deal.

Posted by: Rick on June 1, 2004 05:52 PM

Communication certainly has been the President's vulnerability. Bush needs to realize that the most important part of his job is the articulation of a vision and the education of the electorate on the issues.

Posted by: Smack on June 2, 2004 12:15 AM

Ace,

Statistically, un-decideds tend to make their choice approximatly two to three days before the election, if the vast majority of un-decideds are already leaning for six months prior to the election Bush, you can pretty much reckon on a Bush victory. Q.E.D

Additionally, part of the reason Bush has been silent of getting out "The Message" is this very simple fact, no use blasting your reserve early, we are wating until Mid-October, when it becoms decisive

Posted by: Swiftsure on June 2, 2004 05:11 AM

It's true that the President shouldn't be doing a lot of heavy "campaign ads" right now. But he should be convincing people of his case every day of every year, as Reagan used to do. Bush did an excellent job at the Air Force academy; if he only did that sort of thing every week, he'd be in a much better position right now. People tend to feel unsure of a leader when they don't hear much from him.

Posted by: Smack on June 3, 2004 11:04 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Tucker Carlson claims that it's weird that Ted Cruz is interested in the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, because he has "no track record of being interested in Christians," then blows off the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, saying it might or might not be a real concern
Tucker Carlson enjoys using the left-wing tactic of "Tactical Ignorance" to avoid taking positions on topics. Is Hamas really a terrorist organization? Tucker can't say. He hasn't looked into it enough, but "it seems like a political organization to me." Are Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria? Again, Tucker just doesn't know. He hasn't examined the evidence yet. He knows every Palestinian Christian who said he was blocked from visiting holy sites in Bethlehem, but he just hasn't had the time to look into the mass slaughter of Christians in Nigeria that has been going on since (checks watch) 2009. He doesn't know, so he can't offer an opinion. Wouldn't be prudent, you know? Don't rush him! He'll sift through the evidence at some point in the future and render an opinion sometime around 2044.
Of course, if you need an opinion on Jewish Perfidy, he has all the facts at his fingertips and can give you a fully informed opinion pronto. Say, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty incident...?
You'd think that the main issue for Tucker Carlson, who pretends to be so deeply concerned about Palestinian Christians being bullied by Jews in Israel (supposedly), would be the massacre of 185,000 Christians in Nigeria itself. But no, his main problem is that Ted Cruz is talking about it, "who has no track record of being interested in Christians at all." And then he just shrugs as to whether this is even a real issue or not.
Whatever we do we must never "divide the right," huh?
Tucker is attacking Ted Cruz for bringing the issue up because he's acting as an apologist for Jihadism, and he can't cleanly admit that Jihadists are killing any Christians, anywhere. There is no daylight between him and CAIR at this point.
One might conclude that Tucker Carlson himself isn't interested in the plight of Christians -- except as they can be used as a cudgel to attack Jews.
Just gonna ask an Interesting Question myself -- why is it that Tucker Carlson's arguments all track with those shit out by Qatarian propaganda agents and the far left? That if Jews crush an ant underfoot it is worldwide news, but when Muslims slaughter Christians it elicits not even a vigorous shrug?
Garth Merenghi is interviewed by the only man who can fathom his ineffable brilliance -- Garth Merenghi
From the comments:
I once glimpsed Garth in the penumbra betwixt my wake and sleep. He was in my dream, standing afar, not looking my way, nor did he acknowledge me. But I felt seen. And that's when I knew I was a traveler on the right path. I'm glad he's still with us.

Now that's some Merenghian prose.
Garth Merenghi on the writer's craft

Greetings, Traveler. If you still have not experienced Garth Merenghi -- Author, Dream-weaver, Visionary, plus Actor -- the six episodes of his Darkplace are still available on YouTube and supposedly upscaled to HD. (Viewing it now, it doesn't appeared upscaled for shit.)
I think the second episode, "Hell Hath Fury," is the best by a good margin. Try to at least watch through to that one. It's Mereghi's incisive but nuanced take on sexism.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: The elections! NYC, Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, California, and the future prospects of the Republican party...
Update on Scott Adams:
Scott Adams had approval for this cancer drug but they hadn't scheduled him to get it. He was taking a turn for the worse. Trump had told him to call if he needed anything, so he did. Talked to Don Jr (who is in Africa) , then RFK Jr, then Dr Oz. Someone talked to Kaiser and he was scheduled. Shouldn't have needed it but he did and he says it saved his life.
Posted by: Notsothoreau
Funny retro kid costumes, thanks to SMH
Good to see people honoring Lamont the Big Dummy
Four hours of retro Halloween commercials and specials
The first short is the original 1996 appearance of "Sam," the dangerous undead trick-or-treater from Trick r' Treat.
On Wednesday, we'll see the "Beaver Super-Moon." Which sounds hot.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Historian and Pundit Robert Spencer joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about the Islamists in our midst: Mamdani in NYC, all across Europe, and others.
Full Episode: The Hardy Boys (and Nancy Drew) Meet Dracula
I don't remember this show, except for remembering that Nancy Drew was hot and the opening credits were foreboding and exicting
Schmoll: 53% of New Jersey likely voters say their neighbors are voting for Ciattarelli, while 47% say the cheater/grifter Mikie Sherrill
The "who do you think your neighbors are voting for" question is designed to avoid the Shy Tory problem, wherein conservative people lie to schmollsters because they don't want to go on record with a likely left-winger telling them who they're really voting for. So instead the question is who do you think your neighbors are voting for, so people can talk about who they themselves support without actually having to admit it to a left-wing rando stranger recording their answers on the phone.
TJM Complains about Wreck-It Ralph The very topical premiere of TJM's YouTube Channel.
Interesting football history: How the forward pass was created in response to the nineteen -- 19! -- people killed playing football in 1905 alone
The original rules of football did not allow forward passes. The ball was primarily advanced by running, with blockers forming lines with interlocked arms and just smashing into the similarly-interlocked defensive lines. It was basically Greek hoplite spear formations but with a semi-spherical ball. As calls to ban the sport entirely grew, some looked for ways to de-emphasize mass charges as the primary means of advancing the ball, and some specifically championed allowing a passer to throw the ball forward.
Recent Comments
Grammar nerd: "It's not gender it's sex. ..."

I used to have a different nic[/s][/b][/i][/u]: "Posted by: rickb223 at November 10, 2025 09:21 AM ..."

SMOD: "Newsom blasts 'pathetic' Democrats for 'surrenderi ..."

Bulg: "Your gender is assigned at conception. Posted by: ..."

Socialism and Groypers: "Trump indicates he plans to inflate his way out of ..."

Victor Tango Kilo: "The fact that the MFM is fluffing twink Nazi Nick ..."

rickb223 [/b][/s][/u][/i]: "Your gender is assigned at conception. Posted by: ..."

SMOD: "Two Major League Baseball pitchers allegedly consp ..."

Anna Puma: "Tapirs best performance in a movie? [i]2001: A Spa ..."

illiniwek: "Markets look happy that Shutdown is Over ... up ab ..."

Anonosaurus Wrecks, Why Do the Heathen Rage? [/s] [/b] [/i] [/u]: "Your gender is assigned at birth. ... NO Your ..."

Bulg: "Tapirs are also cool. ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives