17.09. 23:58. Can't access A2K, so saved for later posting.
Ah ... two polls, I wished they'd had two-way numbers too, so I coulda put them in my graph. (I'm beginning to have second thoughts about that too, about doing only two-way polls, but reversing that decision and doing the three-way numbers for all those polls all that way back would be a Tantalic job. Perhaps I should include three-way races if no two-way numbers are available).
Anyway, it looks like the race might be wide open again, after all.
The Harris Poll, Sept. 9-13 (compared to Aug 10-15):
Bush 47% (no change)
Kerry 48% (+1)
Nader 2% (-1)
Pew Research, Sept. 8-14
OK, hold on, this is a weird one. They did their poll on Sept 8-14. This is what the overall result was for registered voters, compared to August 5-10:
Bush 49% (+4)
Kerry 43% (-4)
But, the numbers shifted dramatically during the time they took the poll. So they split the numbers:
8-10 Sept: Bush 52%, Kerry 40%
11-14 Sept: Bush 46%, Kerry 46%
For the
likely voters sample, pollingreport.com, at least, doesn't even bother giving the overall result, but Dales does:
Bush 51%,
Kerry 42%
But then there are the separate ones:
8-10 Sept: Bush 54%, Kerry 38%
11-14 Sept:
Bush 47%, Kerry 46%
Kind of like an instantaneously dissappearing bounce. I would just write off such weird results, if Pew weren't a pretty reputable poll with a fairly good record.
It is my utter conviction that the whole National Guard story on Bush was bad news even if Rather had not effed up on it. Waste of time, as Soz and I discussed here already when the story first broke. Tempting to hit back the same way they hit Kerry with the SVFT, but useless. Every day spent discussing these matters instead of the economy, Iraq, the deficit, Medicare etcetera is a day Bush can be glad with. And thats what we said before the memos turned out to be fake.
But the poll numbers are just totally in flux. A result like Pew's, or even Harris's (showing any bounce Bush may have had from the Convention already dissipated) suggest that perhaps, the scandal
does sort effect after all.
I dunno. Most commentators I've read (here in Holland, too) agree that if Kerry is to stand a chance, he has to somehow succeed in breaking through the mediahype crap and bring out his message again -
a message, anyhow. And that all this petty scandal business is the stuff Bush Jr.'s peace of mind is made of. But who knows.
Personally, polls be damned, I don't even care to think about it. I mean, what the ef is wrong with you people! In less than two months' time, you get to decide on the most portentous choice for world politics in half a decade. Look at Bush's three trillion dollar-worth of plans, and what he stands for. Look at Iraq. At a plethora of world issues Bush will put his administration's disastrous stamp on for four more years. And all you care to discuss for two effing months long is who says what about who did or did not do which stuff how exactly thirtyfive years ago? Kerry might have saved his men but gotten a medal too much? Bush may not have done enough of his reservist's flying exercises? I mean, WHAT? What are you people
thinking of?! Is the world such a complex and frightening place that out of sheer intimidation, you flee into the micromanagement of arcane details? I do that sometimes at work, I admit, but damn. From global warming to nuclear nations, the state of the world is at stake and your media, blogs, pollsters and yes, news consumers blather on day after day about someone's exact (lack of) fulfillment of minor duties mid-last century. Let's talk about their duties
now.
<grumbles>
12:17 AM
Can I do another grumble? And fall right into the trap of keeping talking about Vietnam after all?
Rasmussen has
this:
Quote:September 16, 2004--Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters believe John Kerry's service during the Vietnam era was more admirable than most young men of that era. Nearly as many, 23%, said his service was less admirable while 45% said Kerry's performance was about the same as others.
<blinks>
The man served four months fighting up the treacherous waters of Vietnam, getting hurt (however lightly), saving men (according to those men) - and a quarter of Americans think he behaved "less admirably" than most young men? Another half basically say it was unexceptional for someone his age? What, were "most young men" up there with him? Thought not, there were plenty that found some way to stay home.
At least hardly anyone dares assert Bush behaved more admirably than most - "41% believe Bush's performance was less admirable than most while 46% said it was about the same."
OK and now I'm going to stop talking about it.