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
Jon Ekdahl 2026
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





















« 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
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!
In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.
In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.
Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!
Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all
Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine
Recent Comments
Black JEM: "So, noted dummy Jeffries gets a slim House majorit ..."

People's Hippo Voice: "Oh yeah, and the real anger at DOGE wasn't that it ..."

Oldcat: "My sister has read Bored of the Rings but not LOTR ..."

That Guy: ">> Yeah...not the end of the world. Posted by: Th ..."

ballistic: "268 As much as I love LoTR I've recently been read ..."

LinusVanPelt: "Been wondering: Is Hail Mary good? Posted by: Doe ..."

Oldcat: "False. The democrats are polling at historically l ..."

Norrin Radd, sojourner of the spaceways: "My sister has read Bored of the Rings but not LOTR ..."

toby928(c) : "Indians not taxed is pretty damning to the BRC arg ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Orion Update: The astronauts forgot where they ..."

Aetius451AD: "In Mirkwood. Bombur is a little fat bitch. Fools l ..."

Itinerant Alley Butcher: "No matter how much I squint my eyes and what angle ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives