52% Believe Bush Will Win in November

[freeandfun1]

52% Believe Bush Will Win in November

This is very telling in my opinion. It clearly indicates that the dems are facing in 2004 what us GOPers faced in 1996. They have a candidate they support, but which THEY believe cannot beat Bush. That means that likely, DEMS will NOT vote on election day just as a lot of GOPers didn't vote in 1996.

September 4, 2004--Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans now believe that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney will be re-elected this November. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 38% expect the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards to emerge victorious.

Those numbers reflect a big change from the last time we asked the question. Following the Democratic Convention, data released to Premium Members showed that 47% of voters expected Kerry to win while 43% took the opposite view. Those results were similar to a July survey (following the Edwards announcement) which found that, 46% of voters thought the Democrats would win. In mid-July, 45% thought the President would be re-elected.

However, the current numbers are very similar to the results in June. At that time, 53% expected a Republican victory while 35% expected the Democrats to be moving into the White House next January.

Ninety percent (90%) of Bush voters expect their man to win along with 75% of Kerry voters. Selected demographics are available for Premium Members.

 

[DKSuddeth]

To not vote is just stupid. Whats even more stupid is not voting just because there isn't a candidate you don't support.

 

[freeandfun1]

To not vote is just stupid. Whats even more stupid is not voting just because there isn't a candidate you don't support.

So if Hitler and Stalin are my two choices, I still should vote or I am stupid?

 

[freeandfun1]

Whats even more stupid is not voting just because there isn't a candidate you don't support.

Too many negatives.... what are you trying to say?

Is it this: "What is even more stupid, is not voting just because there isn't a candidate [that you do] support? Not don't support?

 

[DKSuddeth]

So if Hitler and Stalin are my two choices, I still should vote or I am stupid?

If you're country has gotten to the point where satans lover and beelzebub are your only two choices then I'm not going to rub salt in the wound by saying you're stupid, however, you know as well as I do that by not voting you are automatically casting a vote for the winner, whoever that may be.

 

[freeandfun1]

If you're country has gotten to the point where satans lover and beelzebub are your only two choices then I'm not going to rub salt in the wound by saying you're stupid, however, you know as well as I do that by not voting you are automatically casting a vote for the winner, whoever that may be.

I vote so I guess you are directing your comments to those that I suggest might not vote.

Anyway, yes and no on your point. Many see a "non-vote" as a "protest" vote. Maybe some dems will want to "protest" their party's choice and therefore, not vote. Maybe they won't want to vote for Bush, but also, they won't want to vote for Kerry as Kerry might not fit their true beliefs. To me, it is even MORE stupid to vote for somebody you don't like just because he is from the party of your choice. But that is just my humble opinion.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Too many negatives.... what are you trying to say?

Is it this: "What is even more stupid, is not voting just because there isn't a candidate [that you do] support? Not don't support?

you sound like my wife, she's an english major. It really pisses me off.

Don't make me angry, you wouldnt like me when I'm angry.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I vote so I guess you are directing your comments to those that I suggest might not vote.

I am.

Anyway, yes and no on your point. Many see a "non-vote" as a "protest" vote. Maybe some dems will want to "protest" their party's choice and therefore, not vote. Maybe they won't want to vote for Bush, but also, they won't want to vote for Kerry as Kerry might not fit their true beliefs. To me, it is even MORE stupid to vote for somebody you don't like just because he is from the party of your choice. But that is just my humble opinion.

would it not make a better protest vote to your party if you voted for your party's opponent because you cared not for your party's choice? thats just MY humble opinion.

 

[Avatar4321]

you sound like my wife, she's an english major. It really pisses me off.

Don't make me angry, you wouldnt like me when I'm angry.

Holy Crap! John Kerry is becoming a whole new person again!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you're country has gotten to the point where satans lover and beelzebub are your only two choices then I'm not going to rub salt in the wound by saying you're stupid, however, you know as well as I do that by not voting you are automatically casting a vote for the winner, whoever that may be.

In the case of satans lover and beelzebub, by not voting thus casting a vote for the winner, that'd probably be a good choice!
:cof:

(However, we are not in hell yet - well, maybe the liberals think they are )

 

[MtnBiker]

That means that likely, DEMS will NOT vote on election day just as a lot of GOPers didn't vote in 1996.

I agree, the motivation for Kerry is lacking. A large portion of the Kerry vote will not be for him rather a vote against Bush. In turn there will be less voter turnout for the Kerry vote.