A thought on this poll graphic

[zbdent]

Something occurred to me when I saw this graphic from AP on the Kerry tied with Bush poll:



Since Nader joined, Bush's numbers dropped down, and Kerry's numbers actually rose.

Now, to be honest, there are other factors, like the fact that Kerry is now designated as THE Dem candidate (officially or not), and Bush hasn't yet captured OBL. That last one may change since the chase for OBL has recommenced (oh, NOW WE'RE GOING AFTER OBL 24/7??? Why not before the putsch for the war in Iraq, when OBL was "marginalized", according to Bush?).

[Gman]

1. There are those here at DU that will justify Nader's 6%

as saying that's the price the Democratic party has to pay. If they are included in Nader's 6% they are also the enemy of all of us.

Kerry's numbers have actually fallen. You're comparing January to now. the primaries were just getting going (and so was kerry) in January. kerry's high was (what?) 53% several days ago and he was well ahead of bush. Now that they're polling for Nader too kerry is back to even with Bush. Take Nader's 6% and add it to Kerry and you're back to wheree you started.

That worthless POS Nader.

[Dhalgren]

2. Look, it doesn't do any good to curse Nader for running

on his beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not. The same staement can and has been said about Kerry and Bush - so what? The problem isn't that Nader is running, the problem is that 6% of voters rate Nader above Kerry. Why? And do we want (or can we)do anything about it? Screaming at them and cursing Nader is a waste.

[Gman]

5. I'll curse Nader now and every chance I get

because of what he caused in 2000, his irresponsibility in not accepting the blame and his arrogant attack on the American people again by running again. Nader is intentionally trying to make America a completely fascist state.

[zbdent]

3. The graphic showed that, in a two person race in Jan & Dec

between W and Kerry, Bush had over 50 percent. That was still with the other candidates, but the poll was Kerry V Bush, not Kerry V Dean V Edwards V Kucinich V Clark V etc V Bush.

Kerry was in the mid-thirties.

March 1, 2, and 3, the time this poll was taken, Kerry is neck-and-neck with Bush, IN THE 40S PERCENTILE, in a THREE-CANDIDATE race.

Yes, if the disaffected Dems vote for Nader, we lose.

If the disaffected Reps vote for Nader, we have a good chance of winning.

If the 50 million + who voted for (media-generated block of wood) Gore in 2000 don't want to be Bushwacked again and vote for Kerry, we probably have it made.

I refuse to stand upon an aircraft carrier and declare victory while the enemy is still free to roam around where he likes (at taxpayer expense to boot!). (One minor theory why Bush "declared the war over" on May 1 is because there is a time limit where the pResident has to get Congressional approval to keep the troops in "a war"; I believe that's in the War Powers Resolution.)

[w4rma]

4. Nader is *not* the reason for Bush's drop and Kerry's rise, imho. (n/t)

[zbdent]

6. I just found it amusing, since, if you go by this poll

Bush was actually hurt by Nader's entry.

I F'ING KNOW THAT KERRY'S RISE IS NOT DUE TO NADER, IT WAS JUST AMUSING!!!