If Kerry Can't Beat Bush

okay, I said enough about Bush in my posts, so just for fun I'll change subject.
Honestly - were Democrats trying to find the worst possible opponent? STILL, in any normal country Kerry would won only because he will compete against retarded Nazi that thinks that God speaks to him.
But...my question remains.

Despite my hesitations about Kerry, I've never cited 'instances of doucheitude' as the author of the website below does in "Instances of Doucheitude and Why it Doesn't Matter."

However, this is a fun site for skeptics with a serious message conveyed in a series of essays, including: "How F@cked We are Right Now," "How F@cked We will be With 4 More Years of
George W. Bush," "Why This is Not the Time or the Place to Vote for a 3rd Party Candidate" and "Why Every Conservative Should Seriously Consider Voting Democrat this Fall."

Since many of you aren't persuaded that voting for Kerry is the best (and perhaps only) shot at ejecting Bush and saving ourselves and the rest of the world, this might help.

http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

you are absolutely right. If I would be American I would try to beat disgust and vote for Kerry. I mean, I would vote for him, but I am not sure if I would vomit later.
So, I still haven't got answer on my question. Has Bush decided who will be his opponent? Or that's some kind of private joke between Democrats? Like, Bush is so terrible and he thinks God speaks to him, so let's bet if we choose Kerry that EVEN he can win?

I think there's been some exaggeration about Kerry's unelectability (is that a word?). I'm not thrilled about him; frankly I liked Gore better, but that's water under the bridge.

He's not an idiot and he's a lot better than Bush. I doubt that too many people will go into the voting booth unsure who to vote for...

Kerry
Kerry has a history of running lousy campaigns until near the end. He's a great closer. He must not wait too long to get into his closing mode because voters seem to be making up their minds earlier than usual.

BBB

It's a long way to November.

May 12, 2004 - New York Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why the Polls Don't Add Up
By ANDREW KOHUT

WASHINGTON ?- You can hardly blame the Democrats if they seem a bit confused. After all, as the situation in Iraq has worsened over the past six weeks and national polls have shown a steep decline in President Bush's job-approval ratings (some, including the latest CBS/New York Times survey, have him registering well below the 50 percent mark), John Kerry can't seem to pull ahead of the president the national horse-race polls.

Last week's Gallup, Fox News and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys ?- all taken well after the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib ?- continued to show registered voters split about evenly between the president and the senator. New surveys by CNN/USA Today/Gallup and by my colleagues at the Pew Center did show the senator gaining a small lead, but that edge disappeared in the Gallup poll when the sampling was narrowed from registered voters to "likely" voters, and in the Pew poll when respondents were asked to also consider the candidacy of Ralph Nader.

Understandably, many Democrats have begun to despair ?- if Mr. Kerry can't gain ground when the president is in trouble, when can he? His defenders suggest that the evenly divided, highly polarized electorate is so dug in that neither candidate can break away. Others attribute Mr. Kerry's lack of progress to the multimillion-dollar Bush advertising blitz in swing states.

These explanations may have some merit, but the data show there is still a sizable independent swing vote that could drive the election one way or the other. And the declines in the senator's favorable ratings have been modest ?- even in the swing states, where the Bush-Cheney advertising hit him hardest, polls show that most voters still hold positive or neutral views of him.

The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger.

We saw the same dynamic in the 1980 race. President Jimmy Carter's favorable rating in the Gallup surveys sank from 56 percent in January to 38 percent in June, yet he still led Ronald Reagan in Gallup's horse-race measures. For much of the rest of the campaign, voters who disapproved of Mr. Carter couldn't decide whether Mr. Reagan was an acceptable alternative. Through the summer and early fall, the lead changed back and forth, and CBS/New York Times and Gallup polls showed conflicting results ?- at one point in August, Gallup found Mr. Reagan ahead of President Carter by 16 percentage points, yet just two weeks later it registered a dead heat. It was not until the two men held a televised debate eight days before the election that Ronald Reagan gained legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.

Similarly, in May 1992 President George H. W. Bush had only a 37 percent approval rating according to a Times Mirror Center survey, but the same poll showed him with a modest lead, 46 percent to 43 percent, over Bill Clinton. Only the Democratic convention and the debates brought about an acceptance of Mr. Clinton (even though his negative ratings were higher than Mr. Kerry's are now). It took a long time for him to be seen as an acceptable alternative to Mr. Bush.

Should the voters' disillusionment with the current President Bush continue, they will evaluate John Kerry and decide whether he is worth a chance. But, as in the past, the focus at this stage is on the man in the White House ?- and given the events in Iraq, it is unlikely to come off him any time soon. Mr. Kerry's lack of progress should not, for now, be cause for concern to Democrats. Public opinion about Mr. Bush is the far more important barometer ?- and if it remains low, Mr. Kerry will have a chance to make his case.
--------------------------------------------

Andrew Kohut is director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Why voters should be confused at all is beyond me.

I think in a fair race -- no help from Daddy's pals on the Supreme Court, or Brother Jebby in the Florida statehouse, or Die Bold voting machines, Kerry will easily beat Bush in November.

This mess just can't go on another 4 years.

One question, do you all believe that it will matter any if bush or kerry gets more votes.... bush has served his purpose and he can be discarded (IMO he will be) and kerry will be the pres come january... but here is the but.... it will be no different as far as americas policy is concerned... I have a feeling that they both serve the same masters, and believe me it is not the will of the constituents....

this is something I am afraid too yilmaz, I must admit. However, if this is case then Clinton was under same masters as well, and he was pretty bad president when it comes to external affairs, but it was not even near bad as it is during Bush Jr. era.

we know Bush, there is not one thing he has done right - he has set America back 50 years in every area, he has never even approached telling one truth.

A friend's mother who is a devote Republican said, "I would vote for the devil himself if he was running against Bush." I pointed out that Bush is Satan - she related this to her mother who got a kick out of it.

Me too osso. There is a clear distinction between the two men. The vision they each hold for the future of the United States both at home and abroad is quite apparant. Thier leadership styles are completely different. Their diplomacy styles are oppositte.

The choice I would think would be very clear. The country is more polarized than I can ever remember it being.