Yeah, I know, I just had to get in a jab at the LA times deliberately skewing a poll. I've looked at recent news. Poll after poll after poll after poll, national polls, presidential polls, don't show Bush ahead in any of them. They are either tied or Kerry is ahead anywhere from two to six points. These polls are recent, taken during last week, some of them over the weekend. Something about this... the way the media keeps shifting... something is weird about it all.
We go back three weeks in the media and we see the Democrats wringing their hands because Kerry is not connecting with anybody, and then two weeks ago it's reported that everybody felt so good in the Democratic Party, they're going to win the White House and the House back, and the Senate back, and all the governorships, etc... they're going to win everything. And then the Reagan funeral sort of took over everything for a week.
Then yesterday in the Washington Post, we're back to the Democrats leaking to members of the press that they are upset with Kerry in a Jim VandeHei story entitled Doubts Linger as Kerry Advances. He writes, "Supporters want a sharper image. John F. Kerry has shattered fundraising records, unified an oft-warring party and pushed past President Bush in some national polls. Yet many Democratic voters, officials and even members of Kerry's staff express an ambivalence -- or angst."
If things are so great in all the polls, why the angst?
The Post story continues, "These Democrats say the enthusiasm for defeating Bush runs much stronger and deeper than the passion for electing Kerry. The chief reason: The senator from Massachusetts, they say, has not crisply articulated what a Kerry presidency would stand for beyond undoing much of the Bush agenda. So far, these concerns have not slowed Kerry. But if Kerry cannot change this perception coming out of next month's Democratic convention in Boston, it could prove much harder for the party to maximize turnout, win over Ralph Nader voters and keep independents from swinging to Bush, they say." John Podesta, White House chief of staff on the Clinton administration, states "You can't just be against something. [Voters] want a positive vision of where the country is going, and he [Kerry] has to provide that."
"Representative Bart Gordon, well known Democrat from Tennessee, said for Kerry to win the presidency?'Bush has to lose the confidence of the public and the next thing that has to happen? [is] Kerry has to convince the public he's an acceptable alternative. He has not passed that threshold, but he is making progress.' Asked whether he is excited about Kerry's candidacy, Gordon said, 'I am excited about a change of the administration. I think Kerry is a solid guy; he's not an exciting guy.'"
"One standard barometer of voter enthusiasm is how strongly partisans support their presidential candidate. By this measure, Kerry is doing far worse than Bush, but markedly better than Al Gore at this point in 2000. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 68 percent of Democrats strongly supported Kerry and 89 percent of Republicans expressed strong support for Bush."
Seeing margins like that sort of (to me) taints all these polls showing how wonderful things are for Kerry.
Anyway, the story continues, "Although Democratic constituencies from unions to abortion rights activists remain committed to Kerry despite concerns about his commitment to their issues, the durability of that loyalty could be tested soon. Many Democrats are bracing for a Bush resurgence -- if not in the weeks ahead, then after the GOP's national convention in August. After Bush's poll numbers dropped to what history says are perilous levels, he has hit a run of potentially good fortune."
So it appears that Democrats on the inside aren't putting a lot of faith in these polls, and they're worried Kerry doesn't have the ability to close ground if Bush pulls ahead.
But it's still WAY too early to be calling any of it anyway. There's a lot that's going to happen between now and the election.
