It must kill them to post this

New poll shows Bush with slight lead

Fortunately the subtitle is “AP survey finds Kerry solidifying his own base”. They present a tie as bad for Bush and now a Bush lead is noted but with a silver lining. The poll not only shows Bush leading, but leading by more than the margin of error, which probably REALLY irritates them — that margin for error has been their main angle for a couple of weeks now.

This despite almost non-stop coverage about how picking Edwards gave Kerry a huge boost in the polls.

A quote they use to try and show that Edwards has really helped Kerry:

“I’m more impressed with Kerry now that he chose Edwards,” said Republican voter Robin Smith, 45, a teacher from Summerville, S.C. “I look at Kerry and I don’t trust him, but he’s got Edwards, who’s more middle-of-the-road, a strong speaker, more able to reach the common man.”

First of all, it’s weird that they used a Republican to try and show how Edwards was helping Kerry. Couldn’t they find a Democrat to do that? I thought this was a wet dream for all of them.

Second, she says she DOESN’T TRUST Kerry, but by adding Edwards it’s not quite as bad since he’s a good speaker and can reach more people.

Wow. Can’t trust Kerry, but it’s good that Edwards will help him reach out more. That’s a convincing reason to overlook distrust in the Presidential hopeful.

At least this story has the decency to point out that Bush has gained ground from previous polls. Too often we aren’t given any context for the numbers.

Also, much is being made in some circles about Kerry’s claim on Larry King that he hasn’t had time to be briefed on the latest national security warning. Here’s the quote:

LARRY KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn’t increase the — you see any politics in this? What’s your reaction?

JOHN KERRY: Well, I haven’t been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven’t had time.

Why on earth would someone say that. I don’t really believe claims that Kerry would surrender in the War on Terror made by fervent Republicans, but when Kerry says things like this it makes me wonder.

He’s apparently come around a bit from his earlier law-enforcement approach to terrorism, but he hasn’t really embraced the fact that America is at war. Would Kerry, if elected, pull out of Iraq the way Clinton pulled us out of Somalia after Mogadishu? I doubt it. But when a senator running for president says he hasn’t had time to attend a briefing on increased terrorist threats, it will understandably make some people wonder how serious he really is about the issue.

UPDATE: Allahpundit has a picturesque take on Kerry’s lack of time.


  1. ACE: Absolutely right. This poll specified that two of the three days that it was taken were after the announcement of Edwards, and a poll in Michigan (where I live) showed virtually no change in the days after the announcement. I don’t put a lot of trust in polls, though I think they can be a little helpful if you can ever get an apples:apples comparison. What I find to be more interesting is the way the media, the pundits, and the politicians themselves try to spin the polls. Or how they try to tell us what he polls will do, then what they say when the results don’t meet their expectations. To be honest, I’ve grown more than a little tired of watching the political race and writing about it. I think I’m going to focus more on military equipment and strategy, which is mostly the stuff that I truly enjoy blogging about. I’ve neglected it lately. However, I rarely get any ‘you’re way dumber than I first thought’ comments when I write about the Stryker or the XM8. I’ll miss that sort of constructive interaction with readers…

  2. Okay, as ACE pointed out we might have to wait to see the ‘bounce’. Here’s the Rassmussen poll which shows Kerry up 49-45. In the last Rassmussen survey before the announcement, Bush led 47-46. I don’t have the slightest clue about Rassmussen reliability. One thing I notice on Rassmussen is that Michigan is Kerry, but only by 2%, 46-44. I don’t really expect Bush to carry Michigan, but there’s a chance. I think Bush will carry at least two of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all of which were blue in 2000. Even the two smallest, MN and WI, go red and Florida goes blue, Bush still wins if everything else is the same.

  3. The real question is how dumb did nameless guy think you were in the first place? If he’s bright enough to find his way back here, perhaps he can follow up on his initial argument…

  4. Clearly a quote from a Republican regarding Edward’s ability to reach the common man is more meaningful than a quote from a Democrat. Of course Democrats will tow the party line on Edwards, but when even folks on the other side of the fence share that sentiment, that’s noteworthy.

  5. Can I take it you are putting weight in a Republican who thinks Edwards helps Kerry reach the common man, but then dismiss it when the same person says in the same breath that they DO NOT TRUST KERRY? Does asking a Republican about the Democrats count or not? Either Kerry can’t be trusted and Edwards helps, OR who cares if a Republican trusts Kerry or if they think Edwards helps. Someone (esp. a Republican) who goes on the record to say she doesn’t trust Kerry isn’t going to vote for the guy no matter who his VP is. No one who distrusts Kerry is going to cross the line and vote for him because of Edwards. I realize that this is all very nuanced and all, but it seems to be a pretty silly thing to include in the article. I’m not dissing Kerry or Edwards (on this particular matter, at least). I’m simply mystified at the way this was written up.

  6. Murdoc, if you haven’t already, check out the video spoof linked at Kerry Haters. It’s hilarious. I hope all this smily/kissy/feely stuff will be over soon, and we’ll hear more about VALUES (where have I heard that before) and TWO AMERICAS (even though a plot of incomes and wealth shows a range of both, and no bimodal pattern). BTW, a pundit speaking on Fox has noted that Kerry, in naming his VP early, has not only not got the bounce hoped, but has also taken away the only unknown which might encourage people to watch the Dem convention: Who will be the VP? When I was a kid, and there were 3 choices of things to watch at any given time, I watched the conventions like they were exciting, and sometimes they were, like when the candidate was not predetermined, and when JFK picked Johnson, a bitter rival, as running mate (his 2nd biggest mistake, next to the Bay of Pigs fiasco). But, today, I find them to be nothing but feel-good fluff and propaganda. My prediction: The two John’s (trying to look like Jack and Bobby with the football tossing) will go ahead briefly, but Bush will pass them in projected EVs after the Repub Convention, and never look back. Nader will pull off some the the anti-war vote. African Americans will not turn out in large enough numbers (since JK/JE are not kissing up to them enough). Women (32% of which are undecided, according to one poll) are deeper thinkers than to just vote for the most charming men. Hillary will begin compaigning for 2008 on 11/4. Socialized healthcare, the #1 priority with women, will be her main platform. Those who are against Bush due to the war are not noticing that Kerry’s position is not significantly different at this point. Only Nader has promised to pull the troops out of Iraq in 6 months. We need to help them understand they need to vote for Nader. Of course, I could be very wrong.