According to a recent Time Magazine poll, President Bush has opened up a double digit lead of 11 percentage points, well above the margin of error.

Time Magazine

When the Kerry campaign did not receive a bounce in the polls after their convention they dismissed the notion saying there were not enough undecideds to sway public opinion one way or the other.

Questions for debate: Does this show that party conventions are still an integral and important part of our election process?

and

Was the Kerry campaign wrong in their assessment of the undecideds in the country?

Having one poll up is not setting a precident Sleeper I have recent polls that show that they are either close or same.

Polling Report.com
Zogby
8/30 - 9/2/04-Bush/Cheney-46 Kerry/Edwards-44
American Research Group Poll. Aug. 30-Sept. 1, 2004-Among likely voters George W. Bush-48 John Kerry-47
Among registered voters-Aug. 30-Sept. 1, 2004-George W. Bush-46 John Kerry-48
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 26-29, 2004-Among likely voters-George W. Bush-48 John Kerry-48

And here shows others

RealClearPolitics Poll AverageSM

While I will give you Bush is leading in some they will go up and down all the time and with Kerry not going out earlier to respond the Swifties hurt him.

Almost no bounce at all- for him to pull away all polls should have been easy double digits- especially after and during a convention.

I understand that Cadman. But this is the most recent poll and shows a HUGE difference from what was going on just a week or so ago. Kerry was leading by a couple points before the DNC convention and now he is trailing. I think I trend is showing here.

Regardless, an incumbant president, and under his watch, the US attacked, there is no excuse except incompetence why he was not double digits ahead BEFORE the convention, for him to get the 1 or 2 point bounce over all, is not a good thing for GW.

The polls that come out that are conducted after Bush's speech are going to show the bounce. The Time poll seems to be an anomaly. I suspect Bush will have a 4-5 point lead, a lead that will be tough for a man who makes Al Gore look like the epitome of charisma to overcome.

There was a poll from Zogby very recently, I'd link to it but you have to register with Zogby's, that shows that Independents support and like Bush at a higher percentage than Kerry.
While it does also show a dramatically high rate of unhappiness with the current crop of candidates--almost 85%-- and wishing for better choices, it clearly shows Kerry and the Dems are unpopular with a large amount of the independant and undecided.

I don't really think that the conventions are all that important.
The key difference is the positive sounds from the republicans. They speak of hope and better things. It worked like magic for Reagan and Clinton--two of the greatest presidents ever--in their campaigns.
The Dems had a key moment when Obama spoke that they allowed to fly by and be wasted. They should have garabbed that feeling and let it run, instead they've given nothing but sniveling.
While McCain ,Guilz and Swartz don't represent the reality of the Republicans--Santorum, DeLay and Robertson, most americans haven't seen any of this as the Repubs have been very smart and kept them locked in the basement and out of the news.

I don't think the dems were so wrong with the undecided but have been so weak that no one is impressed and wants to support someone who has offered NOTHING resembling a vision on anything. Better the devil you know I guess.
Personally while I really dislike Bush--read any of my posts-- I am so UNIMPRESSED with Kerry that I will just vote Badnarik. Even my ABB mentality is just not enough to support Kerry. I had hoped for a road block to the republicans and their social engineering agenda with a Dem president, but this guy is a total wheeze.

TIME POLL
Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

From my understanding of the poll, the names of the people who were choosen were picked from people who own stock. I don't believe a majority of people own stock outside of their 401Ks.

This is certainly interesting polling data and a hopeful sign for my side, but a 'bounce" is exactly what it sounds like - temporary. I think all it means right now is that the RNC was a success and people liked what they saw of it. Sustaining it is another matter.

I think the single most important thing in this election from a polling standpoint is the President's job approval rating. Depending on which poll you see, it seems to be hovering right around the 50% mark. As long as it stays there, Bush is probably ok. If that number starts to drop though, he's in big trouble.

I think all it means right now is that the RNC was a success and people liked what they saw of it.

But isn't it more interesting that there was no lead taken after the DNC, in fact there was a more significant drop then a gain.

What? I would find it highly unlikely that Time magazine would choose their pollees from a list of stock owners.

That is what I heard. Secondly, Time did not do the polls, SRBI did. Would you put it past them?

From your link:



Nothing about stock ownership. The initial asking for the youngest male, over 18, does seem a bit strange. Seems to me it would overrepresent males. Possibly explaining the favorable results for Bush. Of course it is more likely this technique tends to balance the genders, we all know how women like to talk on the phone.

Im sorry, I thought establishing, or deconstructing, the validity of the poll was constructive. The point is that the other polls I have seen are not in align with the Time's poll. I think the polls that come out later in the week will give a better indication of the bounce. A 7 point bounce or more would definitely indicate a larger undecided vote than previously thought.

Furthermore, a temporary bounce would indicate that the convention had little real influence, a bounce that holds through November would indicate otherwise. The polls in two weeks will give a better indication of the permanence of the bounce.

We can now add another poll to the mix. Newsweek
has Bush leading Kerry by 11 points as well.

I've read that Newsweek poll also and it also showed Bush leading by double digits.
My analysis is the attacks from the Swift Boat veterans in August hurt Kerry more than he thought. It served its purpose which was to put him on the defensive. Politics aside, I've always believed that the Republicans are masters of communicating their message to the people. The Dems seem lost and mystified and Kerry looks like a kid searching for something in the jungle.

But we can expect the polls will go up and down all the way to November. Any slip up by either campaign will be costly.

I pretty much agree with what Cgorham says about this. Right now, I think polls may serve as indicators of trends, but trends can be fleeting if a campaign makes a blunder. I think such a blunder was made, and is continuing to be made by the Kerry campaign over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. Since this thread is about the polls and the bounce, I think those ads and the way they were addressed is germaine to the discussion here. I think that started the Kerry downslide and with the success of the RNC at delivering the Bush message as alluded to by my friend from the other side, that momentum has been sustained. It's now up to the GOP to capitalize on the bounce and not mess things up. We have been known to do that though.

That was the Zogby poll that used stockholders, an odd marker. We are way past the days that only landed gentry can vote.

Upon further reflection and updated observation, I'm beginning to think that this bounce may be very real, and Kerry may very well be in serious trouble.

I base this statement on this morning's Meet the Press program. They had among other guests, Mary Matlin and James Carville on the show. When Russert put up the Time and Newsweek polls, Carville responded by basically saying, "Kerry's had a bad August". Anyone who is familar with Carville would think that he would immediately discount those polls as an "abberation" and not to be seriously believed. Unless........ Unless he thinks they are accurate. His reaction to that question tells me he knows something.

Both parties have so-called "internal polls", the results of which are closely guarded from the public. Unlike most polls made for public consumption where questions and sampling can skew the results, the "internals" have to be brutally accurate. The party depends on them being right so they can make the proper decisions in a campaign. If the Kerry campaign is concerned, it won't be because a couple of magazine polls, but rather because their own internals are showing the same thing. Carville would know that.

And then, we have this. Looks like we have trouble brewing in the land of Ketchup and Camelot II.

You really think that article is a sign of trouble? Kerry does have a reputation of coming back from falling behind. It also sounds like his big mistake of not attacking bush with the same kinds of tactics as he and Rove have employed is finally being brought up by enough inside the Dems to make the next 60 days interesting.
The Democrats really need to pull the kid glove stuff and get in the Republicans face--no one respects a whiner.
Bush and the Republicans can easily be brought down by their own hypocrisy.
example: Illustrate the fact that the 3some of McCain,SWartz, and Gulz are definetly NOT the true face of the republicans. Go after Bauer and Delay and the rest of the right wingers who hold the power reigns. They are not capable of keeping their mouths shut.

I wouldn't be suprised if Carville is unenthused by Kerry's performance. He is definetly NOT the kinder, gentler type of politico. If Kerry were smart he schedule some face time with the Rajun Cajun.

I don't want to pull this thread off-topic, but as a sidenote. James Carville is a lot of things, but "unenthused" about politics isn't one of them. He'd jump into the middle of an election for dog catcher with both feet and start breathing fire. He is nothing if not passionate about politics. I'd love to debate him here, but that would most likely drive the AD staff over the edge.

However, you do bring up a good point that might explain The bounce a little bit. Perhaps the Kerry campaign lacks a passion for their candidate. I don't doubt the passion and anger of the ABB crowd over defeating Bush, but it does seem to me that they are having a difficult time of really supporting and advocating Kerry as Kerry and not the anti-Bush. I brought this problem up in this forum a long time ago, don't know where the thread is, but it does look like it's coming back to bite them.

Rasmussin’s poll surprised even me today by having Bush and Kerry less than two points apart. Rasmussin polls everyday and rolls the results into a three day average.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidenti...acking_Poll.htm

Newsweek and Time have mass circulation and will get more attention than Zogby or Rasmussin.

As much as some would like, I don’t think it’s quite time to trot out Dandy Don to sing “Turn Out the Lights, The Party’s Over.”

A poll is a snapshot of the mood of the moment. I'm not going to dispute the validity of the Newsweek and Time polls. Other polls indicate Bush received a bounce from the convention, but by no means is the race over. I will admit that John Kerry has had a very bad two weeks and George Bush has had a very good two weeks. All of this remains in flux and the election is still up for grabs.

As all you political junkies out there know, Time and Newsweek released polls earlier this weekend showing Bush opening up an 11-point lead over Kerry during the GOP Convention. (The Newseek poll was of RVs; the Time poll was of LVs; Time had Bush up 8 among RVs in a two-way race, up 9 among RVs in a three-way race). The Newsweek internals had Bush doing a bit better across the board, and Kerry doing a lot worse across the board. The most interesting internal was that 45 percent of voters think Kerry is too liberal, while only 32 percent think Bush is too conservative. In other words, the Bush tactic of seizing the center by claiming Kerry's more out of the mainstream that he is has worked to some extent. But that gives Kerry the opportunity to push back.

I stand by my contention that there's no reason for Democratic panic, or for over-reaction by KE04 (yeah, they need to get it in gear, but purposefully, not frantically). For one thing, we haven't seen enough polling data yet to judge whether the news weeklies, who've had a pretty erratic polling record this year, have it right. Zogby's got a poll covering the same period that shows Bush's lead at 2. And while Zogby's record in state polling has been suspect in recent years, his national surveys have been fairly accurate.

http://www.newdonkey.com/

The Swift Boat controversy hurt Kerry as did his slow response. The Republican National Convention successfully buoyed Bush's popularity and widened the gap. However, the internal polls by both campaigns according to Joshua Micah Marshall's blog refect a 4-point spread with the advantage going to Bush.

If Bush maintains a double-digit lead two days away from the election he can start chilling the champagne. But with two months to go this is not the time for Democrats to start crying in their beer or Republicans to make plans for Inaugural Day.

The most intense days of the campaigns are beginning. The first debate is only weeks away. Events beyond either Bush or Kerry's control are still possible to impact the election one way or the other. This has been a close race all the way down the line and I'm not the only one who thinks it will remain so. If you asked me to bet on September 5, I'd bet Bush, but I wouldn't feel overly confident about it.

This election is still a referendum on George Bush.

The money ain't through changing hands just yet.

Wanna bet on that? But, I agree the fat lady hasn't even memorized her song yet. William Safire has a column today though saying the Democratic Party officials are concerned over their internals because Bush has gained traction in some of the most important issues. That's more important than a bounce from the convention, especially because it's in areas that Kerry is not strong in, ie. national defense. He can't seem to even address national security within hauling out Vietnam and even Clinton is getting sick and tired of hearing that.

So, the bounce might bounce back a little, but if the mid-point has changed it could be a long October for Democrats.

So, the bounce might bounce back a little, but if the mid-point has changed it could be a long October for Democrats.

I think more so the polls are showing a trend. That now since the DNC and RNC are over, the debates are around the corner, most undecide voters have decide on Bush. The thing with the most resent polls that we see is that not only has Bush taken the lead in battleground states, but has now pushed states that voted for Gore in the last election into leaning towards Bush.

If Kerry continues on his present course he can not win. If Bush does something really dumb, Kerry can take the lead. Yet it is more important to note that the true deciding polls come after the first debate.

I'm seeing the same trend. Bush has either tied or gained a lead in states Gore won in 2000. But what makes this tricky is that Kerry is also making Bush work in states that should be red-states such as Ohio and North Carolina (don't sleep on this state for Kerry). What these polls tell me as of this moment is both candidates have the potential to win or lose big.

Something tells me someone is going to win by a landslide. With two months to go before the election and three presidential debates coming up ,it looks like we are all in for the ride of our life.

But what makes this tricky is that Kerry is also making Bush work in states that should be red-states such as Ohio and North Carolina (don't sleep on this state for Kerry).

This was the problem with FL 2000. Bush was positive he had Florida in the bag. His brother is governor, he has a hispanic wife and kid. He had it. So he focus on the possibility of winning Gore's state, and nearly loses Florida.

Unlike 2000, the election teams are studying the counties that have swing votes. So instead of running for president, or governor of Ohio, Bush and Kerry are running for Mayor of Small Town, Ohio. They are trying to win each county they have swing votes in.

Put the champagen away my GOP friends.

The Big Bounce for Bush? Don't believe the hype:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The CNN/USA Today/Gallup post-Republican convention poll -- the first national poll conducted entirely after the completion of that convention -- shows George W. Bush getting a small increase in voter support. Bush's share of the vote among likely voters increased two percentage points, from 50% to 52%, while Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's share dropped by an equal amount, in the two-way race. Bush now leads Kerry by 52% to 45% among likely voters, compared with a 50% to 47% lead for Bush prior to the convention. Bush maintains that same 52% to 45% margin when independent candidate Ralph Nader, who receives 1% support among likely voters, is included in the ballot question.

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12922

A seven-point lead? A two-point "bounce." Oh well---on to November.

You really need to look at individual states in order to judge the election. National polls tell you nothing about the probable results in the election--unless the polls are overwhelming one way or the other.

RCP Electoral Count

Real Clear Politics has Bush up 269 electoral votes to 228 for Kerry, with 41 "toss up" electoral votes. By this calculation, Kerry would need to pick up every single "swing state" that is still within the margin of error.




Of course, everything could change, but the election is looking increasingly like it is Bush's to lose.

On that point we are completely in agreement Amlord and I think Ohio is going to be the key battleground of the battleground states. God knows if you live in Ohio and you haven't seen Kerry, Bush, Cheney, Edwards or someone representing them you've probably been locked away in solitary confinement. Like a commercial said, they've been here so often you would think they lost their car keys in Ohio.

Florida is in play and so are a host of other states. That is what makes the election too close to call even less than two months to go. But Kerry has to sell himself as a entirely new product whereas Bush only has to convince enough people they shouldn't switch from the brand they already know and others with doubts to give him another chance.

But I have always thought this was Bush's election to win. Aquilla pooh-poohed me, but ALL elections when an incumbent is involved are a referendum on the job they've done. Particularly so when the divisions are so stark and the electorate so divided. If more people like the job that Bush has done than there are that dislike the job he's done, then Bush wins. That's all there is to it.

I deplore the ugliness and trivialization of the campaign, but I'm pleased how engaged most people seem to be (at least within the circles I travel in).

The polls will wax and wane all the way down the line and both sides will be able to find trends, tracking numbers, and historical precedents to gladden and sadden.

But I'll say it again: The money ain't through changing hands just yet.

You really need to look at individual states in order to judge the election.

All of your polls are before the bounce. Before the RNC, even before the DNC. And yes in Jul/Aug Bush was down. You need to look at the current polling data to conclude which direction the election is swinging. Gallup shows the swing pretty well. NOTE: Bush has 257 Electoral votes to Kerry's 249.

Second, the gallup poll excludes Nader, while the Time and Newsweek polls include Nader. Nader has taken 2% from every state away from Kerry, which gives Bush, according to the Gallup Poll a 9 point lead.

Third, let us look at Historical Convention Bounces and winners (winners in bold):

If we go entirely on the convention, well you can draw the conclusion.

Nighttimer, you've been slacking on the casualty updates. There are now 993 dead Americans in Iraq. Which is what this post is all about.

I give it two, three weeks, maybe a month tops before the death toll reaches a clean thousand. Somehow, I don't think that will do Bush any favors. The 2 point lead certainly will not cover the fallout that could result if the media does its job. Add to that the fact that Kerry will probably not ignore the issue either, and the "big bounce" will do Bush as much good as an aspirin will do someone with a gunshot wound to the head.

The most damaging effect would probably result if the death toll reaches 1,000 sometime in late October.

I NOTICED THE CHANGE RIGHT AFTER I SUBMITTED THE POST. I GUESS I WAS THE ONE BEHIND

Well, according to today's state-by-state Zogby/WSJ poll (as in Wall Street Journal), were the election held today, it would go to Kerry:
At the moment, anyway, Ohio doesn't look like much of a battleground at all - Bush has increased his lead there to 10.9 percentage points. He also gained ground in Tennessee and Arkansas. Kerry gained ground in Minnesota, Washington, Michigan and New Mexico.

It looks like the real battleground states will be Missouri, Nevada, possibly Pennsylvania - and Florida.

Of course, everything could change, but according to the Wall Street Journal, the election looks like it is still Kerry's to lose (or Jeb's to win).

I was interested in the Clear Politics link Cadman posted earlier, so I’m providing it again so you don’t have to go back and look for it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

Monday night, one of Keith Olbermann’s Guests on Countdown was MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford. One of the questions that seems to pop up concerning polls is the differentiation between “registered” and “likely” voters.

Crawford’s thoughts might give us an understanding of why post RNC polls(as illustrated by the Clear Politics link) have been all over the board.



<snip>



Here’s the link to the rest of Crawford’s interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5931263/

BoF, you have got to be kidding about the Bush quote. Both guys have said some pretty dumb things but this, if true, is hilarious!

Did he really say this: "Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their, their love with women all across this nation."?

First off, that is funny as &%#$ but second, no one seems to realize malpractice premiums DO NOT currently reflect lawsuit awards. These rates have been raised to compensate for investment losses in a stagnant economy and NOT to pay for malpractice awards!

While malpractice is a "specialty coverage" and good numbers are hard to obtain on a timely basis, I have checked to see State Farm's overall numbers in other lines this year are up NINE fold in profits. They are not nearly as afraid of natural disasters any more since deductibles and rates have risen and credit scoring was adopted in most ALL states after 911.

The result is an insurance industry making money faster than oil companies!

By the way, insurers are equal opportunity bribers and lobbyists. They simply give to the party in control in the various states since rates and rules are set in the individual states. Bush, a Republican, got his fair share in Texas as did McGreevey, a Democrat, in New Jersey. In fact the wife of Allstate's lead counsel in New Jersey worked in McGreevey's office when sweeping insurance-favorable regulations were passed there.

Follow the MONEY!

Yes PAC, he really did say that.

Keith Olbermann was so amused by it that he played it twice on last night's Countdown. When the replay of Countdown came on at 11:00 p.m. CDT, I brought one of my TV speaker over to the phone and recorded it as the greeting on my answering machine so that I would get it right. It's accurate down to the slurring of getting to gettin' and the stutter "their, their." I knew immediately that I wanted this for a sig line, mainly because of the humor.

Olbermann played it again tonight.

To get the thread back on track, this episode is one of the things that adds humor to a campaign. Unfortunately, I don't expect Kerry to get any BOUNCE from this.

Hmm, interesting.

According to RealClearPolitics, the Zogby/WSJ polls use a "questionable internet-based survey methodology".

I prefer the RealClearPolitics page, since it averages the results of all (or most) available polls. There, we see FLA in the Bush column (as opposed to Zogby, who gives Florida to Kerry) Wisconsin, Nevada and Missouri (all in the Kerry column in the Zogby poll) go to Bush according to the average of the polls.

As the election draws closer, the picture will begin to clear up. The momentum, I think, is with Bush (he's drawing very close to Kerry in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, for instance).

Time will tell.

I would agree with Amlord (yes, it does happen ) that Zogby is a somewhat questionable polling source since it relies on online polling and only verifies 2% of its respondents by phone.

The Gallup poll (link) shows the bounce at about 2%. I thought it was interesting to note that its the smallest "bounce" of a sitting President since Gallup started:

Of course, a -1 bounce for a challenger is nothing to celebrate either.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the "undecided" base is smaller than expected and neither candidate is going to pull away like the Cardinals are doing in the NL Central. I think its going to be tight until the end at this point.

Doc

I agree with Doc here. The bounce was overestimated initially by some pollsters and the results coming out now are probably more accurate. It kind of highlights what I have been saying for several months now - there are about 4 undecided voters in the whole country right now, most people have taken a side.

Who has the majority between the two candidates I don't think we'll know until election day. There is also the unknown to consider, if some major event happens, or a major scandal breaks that will win or lose the election in these final months.

How exactly do you "overestimate" a poll? You take a poll, count votes for each side, and turn that into a percentage. No estimation is made.

While Bush's bounce was nice, the debates are what will seal their fates. If Bush can come out strong, than he will win. If kerry completely overshadows Bush, he will win. But then again, it also depends on what mindset people have going in to vote. WoT = Bush...Economy =Kerry. Simple as that.

I didn't say the poll was overestimated leder I said the bounce was overestimated - reading between the lines there, the original polls were wrong. If you take a look at every poll that has come out since the one that launched this thread or read the last page of responses here, that becomes pretty clear.

If Bush can come out strong, than he will win. If kerry completely overshadows Bush, he will win. But then again, it also depends on what mindset people have going in to vote. WoT = Bush...Economy =Kerry. Simple as that.

Very true. EXAMPLE: Bush vs. Gore, first debate, Gore sighed with everything Bush said, surprised bush when he came up behind him, and came off as a know- it-all cause I am the VP. Bush came out of the first debate very strong. Bush debates very well and does not look like an idiot when doing so, as the votes showed in the las election. A goal for Kerry would to not be Kerry during the debate. Not to talk....like...this...with long pauses between his words, and not to talk down like he did during those town hall meetings, "I let you talk, now its my turn, sit down."

But i don't think it is simple that Kerry = Economy. Very few blame Bush for the economy, no matter how much spin Kerry puts on the economy.

Yet another voice heard from, this time Associated Press. From their latest poll......





I still don't put a whole lot into these polls, there is much work left to be done, but darnit, it is just flat fun to post about them here.

Hmmm. Is this just an opinion, or do you have some numbers to back that up? I found this...

(From the American Research Group)

In every poll I've seen, the public does place responsibility on Bush for the bad economy, which, in light of his tax breaks for the top 1% and squandering of a 100 billion dollar budget surplus when he took office, they well should.

An update: Pew Research Center has Bush ahead by 8 points.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=226

In the past weeks all the other polls had Bush ahead of Kerry by a wide margin, now it looks as though the Pew Research Poll has come in line with the rest.

Another update - CNN still spinning its own poll. Noted this at OTLM
Bush is now up by 8. "apparently" CNN headline writers just can't believe their own polls!

Bush apparently leads Kerry in pre-debate poll


Of course, when Kerry was ahead by the same percentage in the same poll, the word "apparently" wasn't needed, because Kerry's lead was crystal-clear.
Kerry leads Bush in new poll

In the same poll it is determine that Bush wins in Policy making. "When asked whose policies would move the country in the right direction, voters clearly favor Bush over Kerry. By a margin of 49% to 44%, likely voters say Kerry's policies will move the country in the wrong, rather than the right, direction. However, by a margin of 54% to 44%, the same voters say Bush's polices will move the country in the right direction."

I think the polls speak clearly that most Americans do not blame Bush for the economy and furthermore feel that Bush's polices are better then Kerry's

I think that poll does no such thing considering you cited a Gallup poll. Gallup polls have lost all credibility as far as I am concerned because they over poll Republicans. I don't believe that fact has made the major media yet, but it has certain attracted the attention of the blogging world. And this is also worth reading for a little perspective.

Frankly, I don't even know why we are still discussing this, because with the exception of Gallup, the polls out this week so far are put the race back where it should be - nearly a statistical dead head and very close. Bush got a bounce from the convention - so what? Do the Republicans intend to rest on their Laurels until the election - I sure hope so.

I think that you don't want us to discuss this. Let's take a look at some of the other polls.

Pew Research Center Poll has Bush leading by 8.

ABC and The Washington Post, as wells as Time magazine all have Bush ahead by 6%.

Zogby poll which had Kerry ahead a few months ago now shows Bush leading Kerry by 3% points(Although this is in the statistical margin of error).

I won't even count USA Today or CNN because they use the dreaded Gallup poll for their numbers.

Would you like to revise this statement?:

Edit to add:

RealClear Politics which was originally posted by Cadman from page one has an excellent perspective on this.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html