New Gallup Poll: Kerry 50%, Bush 44%
 

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11671

Enjoy!

New Ohio Poll:

Kerry 50%, Bush 43%!

John Kerry leads George W. Bush among likely voters in Ohio according to a survey by the American Research Group. A total of 49% of likely voters say they would vote for Kerry if the presidential election were being held today and 42% say they would vote for Bush.

A total of 2% of likely voters say they would vote for Ralph Nader and 7% of likely voters are undecided.

In a race between just Kerry and Bush, Kerry is at 50%, Bush is at 43%, and 7% are undecided.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ohg

It's about time something political pleases me in this state. Hopefully these results stay like this...only let's hope the gap increases! I've successfully converted my mom over from the Dark Side...I just have to work harder to get the rest of the state :-)

They say that no Republican has won the presidency without winning Ohio. Both candidates have been herer MANY times already, so it's very interesting to be living in one of the battleground states.

Oh God..I hope this changes soon..

These polls are not very representative anyway, all they really represent is that this gonna be one of those TIGHT AS HELL races...

I would have voted for John Edwards (who I voted for in the primaries) but I do not like Kerry...so Bush is the next best choice for me

Chris

How can one possibly want to vote for a man who encourages discrimination? Are we going back to the Dark Ages?

I just have to wonder about this. :laugh: :wavey: How do you go from liking someone such as John Edwards (who will get the VP nomination) to considering Shrub the next best thing in only a few months? Something seems off. ;) Methinks I should post some links to Shrub's track record.

You should post those links. VOTER EDUCATION!!!!!!!! If you have any, you should post links to some Kerry info as well.

For those undecided out there, checking out the Congressional Record can give you some insight on Kerry's record in Congress.

For obvious reasons, I am voting for Kerry, in case anyone is wondering. But my point is that you have to be informed to make a choice, and TV just doesn't cut it.

Moveon.org ha a book out called 50 Ways to Love Your Country. One thing it suggests is to read more and watch TV less. It has really helped me...

Randt

:blob2: :blob1: :blob2:

New Zogby poll has Bush's approval even lower than earlier in the week:

42%

:blob2: :blob1: :blob2:

To be quite honest with you..I'm not a democrat or republican so to speak..I like who I like.. I do research all the candidates.

Kerry flip flops too much. I can't trust him. In 2000 he votes in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China, and now he criticises the president for trading with China...He votes for authorization of force in Iraq, and now things have changed..even though in the first democratic debate he clearly said he supported the president disarming Saddam... I mean there's no consistency.

Now Kerry talks about the marriage penalty tax..and how democrats fought for it...and how he supports it...but sure enough in 1998 he voted against eliminating the marriage tax.

In 2002 Kerry was in favor of rejecting a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay marriage...but now in 2004 when asked if he would support one, he didnt rule it out..

There are also a lot of things I do not like about Bush....I oppose his stance on gay marriage and other things...It's a hard choice this year..because there's so much going on..and I do not love either one..

Chris

Kerry NEVER said that he wouldn't rule out a constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige. NEVER. I hope you didn't read that at Faux News. Back in '98, he was one of a very few people who voted no the defense of marriage act. He's said repeatedly that while he disagrees with gay marriage, he doesn't believe that the federal government should have anything to do with it. As for the other votes, you have to take them into context. You can't just look at his vote and make up your mind, you have to know the reasons why he voted that way. I disagree with many of his votes, but that doesn't make him less appealing. He's a MA liberal running as a moderate. He's not a moderate, he's as liberal as they come, but he can't run on a liberal ticket; it won't fly.

Now, if you say you don't like either, vote for the person who is the lesser of two evils. I submit that it can't be Bush. I mean, c'mon. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, the environment, gay marriage, his tax cuts, his new economic sanctions against Cuba and Syria, his cabinet members and the things they've done; the list is endless.

No you are right Kerry didn't say he wouldn't rule it out...but he also avoided the question by certainly not saying he would rule it out..

He continued to say such things as ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” beating around the bush (no pun intended)--doesnt seem as if he really knows his position on this..

Chris

He's stated his position numerous times: he doesn't agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't feel that it is the federal government's place to prohibit it. It can't get any clearer. He's even been on Faux News and said the same thing, that's why he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the question is: would you want someone who wants to write such hate into our Constitution (Dubya) or would you rather have someone who opposes it, but won't use the federal government to ban it (Kerry)? The choice is obvious, IMO.

We've been there for quite awhile. Don't worry, though, we're taking back this country in November. ;)

The gay marriage thing is only one of the issues...it should by no means determine my decision..

So then I think to myself...How could I vote for John Kerry who strongly supports Affirmative Action, and I strongly do not support it...IMO affirmative action is a form of discrimination...rather than moving forward, and treating people equal, we continue to set apart races...by forcing institutions to admit one race over another, simply because they have a quota they have to meet...It should be about qualifications.

I also do not see how these relate...why does a candidate who opposed gay marriage, have to be for affirmative action and abortion (something I also do not agree with Kerry on)...the whole democrat/republican is really stupid...it's hard to tell HOW they really feel on subjects...Because if George Bush for instance says "I'm a republican..." but is for gay marriage and against affirmative action --then he's trying to play both sides...so neither candidate really has too much flexibility in terms of how much they are allowed to convey about themselves..
There's no in between...there's no candidate who is anti abortion, anti affirmative action , pro gay marriage, pro war is there? The question is...why cant there be, for the people who are not strict along party lines..lol

Chris

I'd rather have Kerry flip-flop on issues than come down on the DISGUSTING side of them like Bush does- pro-discrimination, anti-gay (not anti-gay marriage- anti-GAY), the architect of this war, the architect of 9/11.

I get so tired of people blaming Kerry for voting for the war and now being against. When he, and all of Congress, voted for the war, it was under the belief that the facts that they were being given were correct, that the reasoning behind going to war was sound, and that Iraq was a threat to the United States. All of that was untrue, and propagated by an administration searching desperately for a reason to go to war. If I were John Kerry, I would've voted for the war too, and so would most people, given the "evidence" they were shown.

They really don't relate. Rarely do you find a liberal who supports affirmative action and abortion, but doesn't support gay marraige. That's a rare breed, my friend! :laugh: It doesn't mean that they're playing both sides, it means that they have personal beliefs. How do you find out how they feel about these subjects? Go to their websites and read their campaign platforms. On another note, I've always felt that no man should have any kind of say when it comes to abortion rights. It's a womans body and it's their choice; leave religion out of it (because, after all, religion does not dictate the law) and let the women make their own choices.

I support affirmative action, we need it desperately. If we didn't have it, we'd be back to the sixties and people wouldn't get jobs because of the color of their skin, no matter how qualified they are.

Why can't there be someone like the candidate you described? Because that just isn't reality. This is a country divided and there are more people that either feel like a conservative or a liberal than you feel as a moderate of both parties. You could've voted for Lieberman in the primaries, though, he's a Republican in a Democrats clothing. The trick is finding the candidate who you feel will better represent you. Vote for the man you want, but I can guarantee you that Bush is not the man who want to represent you. He will do nothing but ruin this country even more. I like Kerry, I always have. I voted him into the Senate and I'm proud that I did. BUT - I'm a liberal. I believe in affirmative action, I believe in abortion, I believe in gay marriage, etc.

And, did I read it right that you are PRO-war?!?!?!?!?! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

What do you think of this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in508465.shtml

"The Bush administration is moving to provide public school educators with more freedom to establish single-sex schools and classes by amending a 1972 law targeting gender bias in education."

"The Education Department has announced its intention to propose changes to the Title IX statutes that ban sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities as part of a plan to broaden public school choice."

I've had two Repugs tell me in the past week that they're not going to vote for Bush. One told me she didn't know if she'd ever vote Republican again--she's that upset about the whole Iraq thing and esp. the prison torture thing. She's not buying that it was the sole actions of a few servicemen & women. She thinks it goes much higher up on the food chain than that. The other stalwart Repub is my Aunt. She's scared to death Bush will eliminate Social Security (she's eligible now) and she's really worried about the whole Patriot act thing--she's loves that Bill of Rights and she told me she was really scared of how much power the government has now to invade our homes.

Speaking of which--did anyone catch the Simpsons last night? It was sheer genius!

Want to know what the most telling thing about some of those photographs is? Some of the abuse takes place in the freakin' hallway, OUTSIDE the open prison cells. Of course it was given the go-ahead form the higher-ups, why else would they do it so out in the open?

And good for the converted who will no longer drink the Kool-Aid! :blob2:

No I was just saying...that it's ridiculous to me that if someone is a "Republican" they have to be against affirmative action and gay marriage..if they are a democrat they have to for gay marriage and for affirmative action---and those two have nothing to do with each other in my opinion...that's my problem

Chris

You are right Dissention...I will just have to decide who I think represents my beliefs the best--that will be tough..hopefully it will be more clear as the election comes closer...Maybe I will just check out Ralph Nadar lol

Chris

Well, that's where the conservative and liberal labels come in. Being a Democrat doesn't make you a liberal. It's liberals who are pro-abortion, affirmative action, etc. But Republicans are the enemy to a free country. :laugh:

I LOVE Ralph to death, he exemplifies a true American. Unfortunately, he shouldn't be running this year and he knows it. The only votes he can get are those form liberals, which will take away from Kerry. That means four more years of Shrubya. However, I suspect that Nader will get lots of support, then drop out and endorse Kerry.

I just do not think RN is a politician and he would not in any way be an effective leader. I mean it is possible to be a great writer, American, watchdog, etc., and be completely unsuited for politics :shrug:

Plus, in some of his recent interviews, like the Bill Maher one, Nader came across as not all there IMO. So, I say he is better for Amercia as a watchdog than he could EVER be as President.

Shrubya? Is that you?!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

oops!!!!! :woohoo:

:laugh: No, I totally agree. It would be impossible for him to get anything done if he was elected. It's all Democrats and Rethuglicans in Congress, with the exception of three freakin' independents. Just because you have the support of Jeffries, it doesn't mean a thing. Randi said it best when she said that he should run for now, then in October, approach Kerry and say you'll endorse him and hand over your voters in exchange for a watchdog position on his staff (where Ralph will do something good).

How old are you? If you're under the age of 35, I hope you enjoy your upcoming tour of duty in Iraq when Bush reinstates the draft 2005 for his "crusade" in the Middle East.
I also hope you can live with John Ashcroft on the Supreme Court and the repercussions that follow.

Do you have ovaries? No? End of discussion. :mad:

I want to support a candidate that endorses mandatory vasectomies for all men of a certain age...and party preference. :rolleyes:

Not to mention, Bush's father pushed him to go to Congress. He wasn't going to. He was goingto Iraq anyway. He did it for the sake of public opinion.

Yeah, there's a vote that's going to help clarify things. :distress:

This is a very simple opinion on a VERY complex issue. Maybe you might want to explore affirmative action a bit more before you allow it to sway your vote....

Not to mention W will never ever get rid of it no matter what he or anyone else says. So, I think this is a moot issue.

its interesting to read such threads as a foreigner... i'm an irishman living in Britain right now and I can honestly say that I know noone, absolutely noone who is in favour of the occupation of iraq. Please let John Kerry be sucessful in his attempt to turn the USA into a valid force for good as opposed to bush's laughing (tho dangerous) stock.

Affirmative Action is a complex issue...but it's hard for me to agree with it. I've looked into it a lot actually---and I guess I'm living in a fantasy world to want everyone to be hired/admitted to colleges based on qualifications rather than race...I think this country has come so far in the race thing -- and to me affirmative action sets us back , by setting one race apart... In Georgia (a state with the lowest SAT scores) they were debating using SAT scores to determine HOPE Scholarship eligibility (for those who dont know what it is -- GA. Lottery Funds the HOPE scholarship, and any student in GA with a B Average or 3.0 can get their public college tuition paid for completely)...well HOPE is slowly running out of money...so they are trying to make higher qualifications for it....well the lawmakers decided that they couldnt use SAT scores because blacks have lower SAT Scores--and that would be unfair...and that is just totally pointless to me..Because blacks statistically in Georgia have the lowest SAT scores...using SAT scores would be unfair???

Maybe someone here can enlighten me on some positive points of affirmative action -- I haven't found any yet. Call it a simple opinion, but to consider race in college admissions is RACIST in my opinion...it should not even be a question on the application.

Chris

Well. My take on affirmative action is this.

Minorities (I'll use that cheezy umbrella term to avoid offending on ethnicity over the other) have been so subjugated and disenfranchised for SO long, that I don't think 50 years since Brown vs. BOE is enough time to balance the scales.

One would think that race relations are just swell, considering all the legislation passed in (primarily) the 60's and all the advancements regarding tolerance, acceptance, blah, blah, blah. But, I just don't think that the U.S. is at the point where our general citizenry can be trusted to NOT screw over minorites just for the hell of it.

I don't think affirmative action is perfect, I don't think it's necessarily the best solution for the problem, but at the same time SOMETHING has to be continuously in place to have oversight on those who would reverse all that we've attained so far until a better solution comes along.

I think white dudes complaining about the fact that they can't get into the college of their choice because those that have been disenfranchised for soooo long get a "leg up" is pretty pathetic. The collegiate choices open to a white dude are much, much broader than a minority.

That "well I worked hard to get where I am, why should someone who achieved less than I did get to go in front of me" argument doesn't hold water. Yes, white dude Bob may have worked really hard to get his 3.9 gpa, but I'll betcha that black dude John had to work twice as hard to get his 3.4 gpa. And I'm not talking about working towards grades. If one has a better economic position, it's easier to concentrate on working towards scholastic achievement. If one comes from the poorer side of society, it's requires that much more diligence and hard work to equal the results of the better off.

I guess I just think it's a nice thing to do. For 200+ years, your people were enslaved and/or denied basic human rights. Well.... now we think you should get a jumpstart into all the things you couldn't previously have, which in turn will allow your descendants to finally BALANCE the equation- at which time, gov't oversight will end.

Sorry this got offtopic. Like Randi from Air America sez- "Liberal means that you're only as strong as your weakest link. When I was in the military, we all had to work to help the weakest in our division. We were all judged and reprimanded based on the one who did the worst. So, we helped that person become better until we were ALL better."

That's what democracy and free society means to me. Not greed, not intolerace, not government intruding on personal freedoms and desires. Life, liberty and the pursuit of f**cking happiness.

:wavey:

Thanks "The Tower" some very good points you raised there...I never really thought too much about the economic position thing...and how that could affect one's ability to perform..

Chris

Affirmative Action was created to give minorities a chance against the people then in the majority. The rationale was to correct the historic scenario that suggested people from minorites were discrimminated against in the workplace, education acceptance, etc. The problem about this rationale is not all people currently benefiting from Affirmative Action have had any direct and relevant discimmination (denial of acceptance, job, etc.) and/or their socio-economic backgrounds have allowed them more opportunities than caucasian applicants, etc. I mean, solely by way of hypothetical example, Denzel Washington's kid could apply for and get accepted over an impoverished caucasian child based on a system meant to correct wrongs of the past. Well, I think that scenario is wrong. I mean while Denzel Washington's kid may have been called racist names, that does not effect his chances of getting into college as much as an impoverished causian child. I think everyone agrees that this kid needs no financial or other help getting into school. So, I think the system needs to corrected to base the help given solely on socio-economic status and take all race out of the picture. I mean IMO (and I know others vehemently differ) the rationale behind Affirmative Action applying solely based on race is over. But, anytime anyone dares to question it, they are branded a racist tantamount to the KKK - which is just wrong IMO :cool:

Also, people abuse the system. I used this example awhile back. A friend of mine has a distant but direct relative that he never knew whose race qualified him for not only college acceptance but for a scholarship. So, he, who BTW is already weathly, took the deal. AND it was perfectly legal. He was not alone in that boat. So - I say - it ought to based on financial need. But and again, that will never happen because the perception is that white people still rule the world and that white people want to screw black people over and in every way and at every opportunity. I personally think we as a nation have eveolved significantly past that, although it certainly still happens.

Finally, every rich minority kid I went to grade school with (about 15 in my class of 80 - I went to a costly school) took advantage of minority based scholarships and acceptance, when none of them needed either. So, clearly greed and all that is a two way street.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I just spewed my beverage, doll!!!!!!

Because he doesn't want to sacrifice the four black supporters he has. A vote is a vote, after all.