maybe, but not vitriol. Dean had vitriol. Yes Kerry takes pot shots at
Bush, but that's part of being a candidate.
I think the numbers are a reflection of the strong division of the
electorate. The nearly 50/50 split pretty closely mirrors the
distribution of Rep/Dem and I think the split is more along those
predetermined lines than anything that the candidates are saying or
doing. Bush has alienated enough dem-leaning independents and Kerry,
as a career blueblood politician, may not be different and compelling
enough for the rep-leaning independents.
I think this one's going to come down to which candidate doesn't flub
it (or which media bias better manufactures a flub). Bush's chances
are predicated largely on international influences. If Iraq goes
quiet, then Bush will likely win. If it flares up, Bush will likely
lose. Since Kerry isn't an incumbent that has to be responsible for
those kinds of things, he pretty much only has to worry about what he
says and not tripping and looking like a doof.
-Kevin
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:11:26 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's interesting. I'm guessing Kerry's high numbers are at least partly attributable to the large degree of vitriole for his opponent....ie we'll rally around anyone who's not Bush.
>
> Clinton was able to bring his numbers up so quickly and effectively because he's simply the greatest politician i've ever seen. Kerry has no where near the personal charisma that Slick had.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Graeme
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Gallup Polls
>
> An interesting stat I heard on the radio yesterday was that Kerry has
> the highest rating of any contending nominee going into the convention
> in the last 50 years. Heck, Clinton had something like 4% during his
> first primaries.
>
> -Kevin
> <snip>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
