Lastest Poll Shows Kerry Lead in Florida

According to this Bloomberg.com story, Kerry's Lead Over Bush Widens in New Hampshire, Florida Polls. (Spotted via First Draft, an interesting-looking new blog).

Update: Then again, Flablog points to this poll showing a tie. (The ARG poll was taken Aug 3-5; the Strategic Vision poll was taken Aug 2-4.)

This entry was posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Lastest Poll Shows Kerry Lead in Florida

  1. Phill says:

    This is all sooo fucked up.

    Why is Dufus even managing to break 20%? It must be obvious to anyone with the intelligence of a crustacean that Bush is hopelessly out of his depth, that he repeatedly lied to justify the invasion of Iraq and has completely neglected the hunt for Bin Laden. Meanwhile at home the largest surplus ever has turned into the largest deficit and the economy has been in recession for the whole four years.

  2. MP says:

    I know a few guys who are back from Afghanistan. Maybe you’d like to say it to their faces that they’re neglecting their duty to hunt down bin laden? I bet you could tell them how to do it better.

    Do ya think that 9-11 maybe had a little something to do with the economy Phillsy?

    BTW, just because the manager of the DNC chose to drop an fbomb on live tv, doesn’t mean the rest of us care to read or hear it in every public forum.

  3. Chris says:

    Now, now MP–keep your shirt on.

    You didn’t answer the implied question (at least if you’re a FL resident, MP): why are you voting for Bush? I’m sure Phill won’t think you’re a crustacean if the Republicans favor some policies that benefit you directly–you might then be greedy, perhaps, but at least not stupid. Phill’s point is well-taken, however, if Bush’s supporters in FL happen to be anyone but a rich, White, heterosexual, Republican religious zealot (whose interests have been pandered to, if not served, handsomely). If Bush’s supporters happen to be anyone else, then they’re voting for someone who hasn’t lifted a finger to serve them and I don’t blame Phill for being puzzled at this.

    Not that the FL poll matters–the Republicans put on a noisy act about being sooooo moral and upstanding, but they haven’t done anything re the many issues related to the possibility of rigging the voting machines. Except to say “trust me” and purge blacks and Hispanics from the voting registers.

  4. Brett Bellmore says:

    Can’t keep track of the news, Chris? That’s “blacks but NOT Hispanics”, actually. And most of the people on the purge list are white. Blacks are disproportionately represented, yes, but short of convincing blacks to commit less felonies, how are you going to change that?

  5. DNS says:

    MP —

    Phill was wrong to say that Bush has “completely neglected” the search for Bin Laden, and I doubt he would say anything against the soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan who are doing good work in that cause. The point, though, is that Bush has clearly neglected Bin Laden in favor of Iraq; there’s little doubt about that. Anyone who supports the troops in Afghanistan searching for BL should demand more effort, more funding, more focus on that truly important objective — things that Bush has failed to provide.

  6. DNS says:

    Brett —

    There are ways to purge voter lists and there are ways not to. Jeb Bush and his administration have botched the job and tried to keep their methods secret. A government genuinely interested in preparing honorably for the election could have done this so, so much more effectively. Chris’s doubts about the integrity of the process simply prove that he’s an informed citizen.

  7. MP says:

    Phill and Chris are excellent examples of the juvenile mentality that infests “liberal thought” today. Phill assumes that his view of the world ought to be “obvious to anyone”, and fails to comprehend the deeper reasons those who disagree with him may have. Chris explains away the dissent, and simultaneously assumes the worst of his fellow man, with his line “you might then be greedy.”

    DNS, while showing more maturity, thinks he can rescue Phill on the “neglect” that Bush has shown bin laden. The problem with his reasoning is that he assumes that Bush supporters believe that the capture of a single man, who may or may not still be alive, is more important than establishing a liberal democracy in the most fascist region of the world. His assumption is wrong. In fact, Bush supporters recognize that the chain of events a free Iraq will lead to will ultimately guarantee our safety to a greater degree than the capture of one man.

    This viewpoint, that Iraq is of greater importance than bin laden, is well published and discussed in other forums. Rather than inform himself on what Bush supporters believe, DNS assumes to know and shows himself no more informed than Phill.

    I strongly suspect that those who are baffled by the relatively even support between Bush and Kerry might be enlightened by spending time on intelligent conservative websites (www.nationalreview.com and others) rather than the liberal support groups like this one. I doubt you will be converted by what you read there, but you will at least be informed and develop a respect for the point of view of your fellow Americans, disagreements aside.

    As soon as you provide evidence that the hunt for bin laden has been neglected, as well as the voting in Fla rigged, I’ll be happy to respond. Hopefully you can come up with something better than a) bin laden’s head isn’t mounted in Time’s Square and b) Gore lost in 2000.

  8. DNS says:

    Evidence that the hunt for Bin Laden has been neglected? Sure: the removal of Special Forces and sigint assets that were being used to find Bin Laden so that they could be used in Iraq. Arguments about the importance of establishing democracy in Iraq are somewhat beside the point. In fact, I may agree that this is a laudable goal (nothing I wrote says otherwise); but the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was made possible by a lessening of commitment to the search for Bin Laden. This is widely known — among military officials, the Army War College, and elsewhere.

    As for Florida voting, I was talking about recent events — not the results of the 2000 count. Recent news reports clearly suggest bad faith on the part of Republican election officials.

  9. Chris says:

    MP, you still haven’t answered the $64 question–why do you support Bush? And what logic do you use to justify your contempt for those who oppose Bush when his policies are not in their interest? If anything, that more than 20% support him in FL suggests a distinct lack of common sense among their electorate–which was Phill’s point, and again you neglect to make any substantive comment except to make the usual irrelevant and gratuitous generalizations about the posters.

    By the way, I am a conservative–I’m not sure what in my posts indicated otherwise (unless any criticism of Republicans indicates one is liberal; in which case, it is MP who has the puerile wit). For one thing, conservatives are suspicious of government power because they recognize its potential for abuse, especially if there aren’t any checks and balances. Thus, my concern about the rigging of the FL voting–there are no safeguards. Unlike you, I don’t buy their pap. The Republicans are politicans and human, not Jesus, and are self-serving first and foremost. Lack of voting safeguards + corrupt individuals = rigged election. I would feel the same way should Democrats be running the show.

    So I wish you would stop insulting conservatives by suggesting you have anything to do with them, since I don’t think you know what that word means.

  10. DNS says:

    MP —

    On the larger issue you raise — that Bush is hoping that a liberal democracy in Iraq will catalyze a fundamental change in Middle East towards stability, freedom, respect for basic rights, etc. Perhaps he’s right. I myself seriously doubt it. I can’t claim to be any kind of expert on the Middle East, but then neither is Doug Feith or any of his fellow travelers. But I do have an MA in international relations and another in political theory, and if those years of study taught me anything it’s that grand schemes have more often led to disaster than success. Culture and religion are more important factors in both domestic and international affairs than any sete of institutions one might try to impose from the outside or from above.

    Which leads to my next point: I find it odd — and quite frankly amusing — that the term ‘conservative’ (or neoconservative) is applied to the set of policies and goals being pursued by Bush et al. Whatever happened to those good old-fashioned conservative principles in foreign affairs like caution, a preference for incremental change, a preference for established and time-tested methods (e.g. containmnent of threats through alliances) over radical reformulations aimed at utopian nation- and region-building initatives?

    If Bush’s current evangelical approach to foreign policy had been offered as part of the Republican platform in 2000 we would have been able to debate its merits. But Bush campaigned on a traditional conservative platform: isolationist rather than interventionist, clearly opposed to nation-building, and claiming to prefer humility in foreign relations to hubris and bombast. I suspect you’ll say that 9/11 changed everything. Aside from noting that that assertion is itself fundamentally un-conservative in character (true conservatives believe there’s nothing new under the sun, just the same old evils coming around in slightly new disguises), I’d have to say that I seriously question the idea that 9/11 changed everything. If anything, Bush and his team have had to learn, the hard way, that the old way was probably still the best way: alliances, partnerships, cooperation, team-building, slow and steady diplomatic pressure and, finally and only as a last resort, the use of the military. [Yes, aggressive counter-terrorist methods — e.g. covert ops — should be used, but they were always being used, even before 9/11.] All in all, I think a true conservative would be appalled by the Bush Administration, rather than enthralled.

  11. MP says:

    DNS has finally shown that there are a few liberals who can think.

    He is correct that on the surface, Bush’s strategy in the middle east is contrary to traditional conservative approaches. But I don’t think it correct to say that 9/11 changed everything. That view would overlook another conservative approach, most often applied to domestic affairs: Self-reliance.

    It is an anchor of conservative thought that people ought to take responsibility for their circumstances, even if it means suffering in the short-term. Over time, people will learn to solve their problems and empower themselves. This was basically the viewpoint, and remains so, for most of the world where things are “unstable”. Let them sort it out for themselves. Ironically, this approach was advocated by michael moore in his DNC debate with bill oreilley.

    Unfortunately, with the use of wmd against the US, their problems became our problems. And here is where Bush and Kerry differ.

    Bush believes that we cannot rely on other world governments to implement the necessary steps to combat terrorism effectively. Kerry believes we can rely on them.

    You state “that the old way was probably still the best way”. I ask why? What world problem has the UN solved? Bosnia and Israel are prime examples of the utter failure of europe or the UN to make any difference in the world. Where was europe when muslims were being slaughtered a few miles from vienna? Sure, slick willie got sharon and arafat to shake hands…then what? Who is it leading the call to an end of the slaughter in sudan? In the end, we have had to step in when europe sits back and allows people to be slaughtered, as usual. Why oh why should we trust the rest of the world to have the slightest concern for preventing terrorist attacks in the US? Look at how some of them reacted: “we had it coming.”

    And this is not to say that Bush intends to solve the terrorist problems alone. He intends to rely on the tremendously widespread democratic desires that exist in the middle east. Certainly not among its current leadership, but among its people. Iraq, Iran, Syria and Jordan; all of these nations are teeming with young people open to western-style governments. The youth of these nations want peace with the US and Israel. They simply need a little help overthrowing the tyrants they live under.

    We have done our part in Iraq. We have empowered the Iraqis to live freely. Have you noticed that no matter how many times terrorists strike Iraqi police recruits, new recruits keep enlisting? Iraq is now a symbol of hope for the millions of oppressed in the middle east who struggle against their islamofascist governments.

    Clearly, a conservative approach of self-empowerment to the problem. We are helping them to fish for themselves.

    With regards to the “constitutional crisis” liberals assert exists under a Bush “regime”, I regard this as overreaction. Here we have a fundamental question of whether our freedoms can be bent without breaking. Conservatives believe our rights can be bent for pressing security needs. Liberals believe that our rights are brittle, or they do not recognize our security needs.

    As you can see, Bush and his policies have not been inconsistent with traditional conservative approaches.

    It makes no difference to me if rational people like DNS agree with my viewpoints or not. However, I hope that this post helps to clarify why half the nation supports Bush.

  12. Chris says:

    MP wrote: Conservatives believe our rights can be bent for pressing security needs. Liberals believe that our rights are brittle, or they do not recognize our security needs.

    MP,
    Again, you distort conservative values–I wish you would stop it. True conservatives would fight tooth and nail against any attempt by government to infringe on individual freedom or else create dependent or semi-dependent citizens (a la welfare). This is why conservatives oppose “big government,” and not because they hate the poor–rather, we believe that government is too easily a tool for tyranny and is not to be trusted to act benevolently without safeguards. At least Colin Powell has requested international monitors to help ensure the legitimacy of the election, at the behest of Democrats. It saddens me that the international community has to watch our election like one in some banana republic, but the Republicans again showed their colors as anti-conservatives by fighting every effort at installing checks and balances (including the use of monitors). The election in Florida is just one front, and MP has neither defended the integrity of the interested parties supervising the elections nor made a substantive defense of the machines, which were the two serious concerns I have about the legitimacy of the FL election. I can only assume that he concedes this point, which means that FL needs to be under a microscope if the interested parties are unwilling to take any steps toward legitimacy.

    Further, MP’s assertion quoted above is simply wrong for another reason. How many people have al qaida killed, versus the number killed by totalitarian regimes? If you would permit the groundwork for a totalitarian regime out of craven fear of a few terrorists, then your security priorities are as backwards as your understanding of conservativism.

  13. Chris says:

    If one wants a rosier picture of Republican attempts to manipulate the election, including in Florida–as in the futility and incompetence of it–then check out Tom Engelhardt’s column…

    http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1672

  14. MP says:

    Chris- Your statements are typical of the out-of-context, distortive game played by liberals today.

    No reader predisposed to treat those who disagree with him with respect would understand my statements as it being acceptable to rig an election. I personally do not believe it necessary to have monitors, but no conservative I know of is opposed. In fact, the more the merrier. 2000 was not rigged, and neither will 2004 be. It is time to face facts that Gore lost.

    There is however a problem with more observers. There could be actually more alleged misconduct by both parties (truthful or not) as a result, and confidence in the system might be further shaken. We will all have to wait and see.

    My statements regarding the pliability of privacy rights is targeted towards the more general attacks against Bush with regards to his policies on terrorist prisoners, airport security, and the P.a.t.r.i.o.t. act. Any level-headed reader would have picked up on that.

    Chris does not really argue. He states, Bush policies “permit the groundwork for a totalitarian regime”. I have already stated, that the nexus of the debate is whether or not our rights are pliable. A totalitarian regime is a theoretical possibility, via an unspecified “slippery slope” Chris undoubtedly assumes to exist. But I have already stated, that a conservative can disagree that the specific steps Bush has taken lead to this result, and also that the steps are necessary to prevent a clear and present danger.

    Chris’s approach assumes that there can be no diversity in conservative thought. The DNC demonstrated tremendous diversity in the democratic party. Is his mind so narrow that he cannot comprehend that conservatives might have various viewpoints?

    His last point, that mathematics should dictate policy, speaks for itself. There is also no logic to it, because alqueda desires to establish a world wide totalitarian regime.

    I am not sure if Chris considers himself a conservative or not. But just as there are liberals who lack acute minds and wisdom, we conservatives have our share as well.

  15. Chris says:

    Nice try, MP–next time you should do your homework (speaking of dull knives in the conservative’s box). As for your claim that no conservative you know opposes monitors. And you’re correct (at least in my case). But that must mean that neither are you nor the Republican party are “conservatives” as today’s news reveals:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/index.html

    Note especially the quote: “The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.” And on the MTV page: “When Republicans in the House got wind of the Democrats’ move to obtain outside observers, they secured an amendment for a foreign-aid bill that forbids federal funds from being used for the U.N. to monitor U.S. elections.” It sure doesn’t put your Republicans in the best light.

    QED.

    My mind is in fact narrow when it comes to destructive nonsense like yours, illegitimately using the term “conservative” when you have no clue what it means. You’ve been outed.

  16. MP says:

    I will concede I was not aware that there were proposals to have UN monitors. That I would oppose. Note however, that monitoring is a distinct issue from lending credibility to a corrupt organization like the UN.

    What nations head the UN human rights comittee? Applying UN logic like that, I assume our overseers would be North Korea, Iran, and Sudan?

    We are not a bannanna republic. I understand that dems had proposed having lawyers volunteer to monitor polling places. American lawyers. That I would support. I would trust a democrat lawyer over a corrupt UN official any day of the week.

    I think the fact that you quote MTV as your news source speaks for volumes about your qualifications to judge who is and who is not a conservative.

  17. Chris says:

    MP, first off I will apologize to you for getting peevish on this topic. I want to see if we can close this debate on the legitimacy of the Florida elections on a productive and civil note. Nothing I write below is calculated to offend.

    To recap, there are two issues in Florida that concern me. First, the problem of voting machines being unregulated and unaccountable. Second, the problem that interested parties are the decision makers in whether the machines should be modified to be accountable or else discarded. I don’t think these two facts are in dispute, or else you haven’t provided any proofs to the contrary. That being the case, a fair response to this situation might be: “Let me first say I think the Republicans will win fair and square, and neither do I think that they will manipulate the election. At the same time, I do recognize that their political opponents will be highly uncomfortable with this situation since there is opportunity to manipulate (and let me be clear, opportunity does not require action). And I am disappointed that the Republican officials responsible for overseeing the elections are dismissive of the problem and apparently unwilling to work with Democrats to create a mutually satisfactory system. Whether the Republicans are right or wrong, it leaves the wrong impression that will only galvanize opposition.” Perception is key here, MP, and if the Republicans are confident of winning, it simply is not good politics to sit smugly by and let the matter become an issue to galvanize opposition.

    Regarding your opinion of conservativism, I respectfully disagree. Based on your earlier posts, what you describe is what folks now call neoconservativism. I think this label is misleading in that neoconservatives abandon many important conservative principles (DNS and I have them in posts above, so I won’t rehash them here, and you illustrate where your political values differ). I don’t like the term “neocon” because it suggests that neocons are a sect or denomination within conservativism, or genetically related. I think a more accurate tag for the Bush party would be “radical republicans.” Since neocons differ along many important respects from more traditional conservatives, I think your using the term “conservative” to describe dominant Republican thinking is therefore misleading and confusing–like calling a Muslim a Christian. And neither should there be any a priori stigma for acknowledging yourself as a neocon (any more than for one to say he or she is a liberal or conservative). I will have no objections in future posts if you accurately describe conservative opinion, but you should take care to note where your opinions are neoconservative as well, since the two are not the same thing. As from my reactions in earlier posts, some neoconservative values are–to me–offensive and dangerous, and I don’t like the odium of these ideals attributed to my political beliefs. But I apologize for the vinegar and salt, and hope that this post clarifies things.

  18. greg Hackman says:

    If when my wife came to me to get $100 for some things we need at the store and I told her all the money we had saved for 8 years was gone and we now owed double what are savings had been. Also I am sorry, but we can not buy food or medicine. “SHE WOULD FIRE ME.”
    LETS FIRE PRESIDENT BUSH ON NOV.2 “WEAPONS OF MASS CHANGE=VOTE FOR OUR JOHNS!!!!

  19. American Soldier says:

    OK guys stop the shit. There are two wars going on right now. How many Kerry supporters will join the “Kerry Army” and do peacekeeping feel good missions ? If Kerry gets elected he is reponsible for every body bag that comes home on his watch. Same rules apply. Some how kerry supporters think they can just vote the problem away. Wrong. Iraq surrendered and after the first violation he should have been hammered. The UN what a joke. I am sick of the “flower power” generation and now the “my bad” generation. America fat, dumb and happy right. We get what we deserve ! Liberals go vote as many times as you like. Conservatives go buy an assault weapon, we will need it in the future. When our children celebrate Islam and our woman hide there faces youll be wishing you voted different.

  20. Wittman says:

    AMEN to American Soldier. Thank you for telling it like it really is.
    God Bless you and your fellow servicemen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.