And all CBS can muster is a dead-heat. It doesn’t look good for Kerry (thank goodness).

You know CBS. It’s the network where Dan Rather said “We Won!” when Clinton was elected.

Posted by: Max Darkside at June 29, 2004 01:51 PM

How can the polls vary so much? Do people really wake up one week and think Kerry’s my man and then the next week favor Bush? Somethings wrong with polling somewhere. I suspect that as a poll has little consequence people might not give an honest answer just for fun. When it comes to the real thing in November it will be different. If Kerry wins it will look like a victory for al Qaeda so when the time comes to cast a vote the choice wont seem so trivial.

Posted by: AngloAmerican at June 29, 2004 02:02 PM

We will be polled to near death before this campaign is over. We’ll see data sliced and diced in everyway imaginable. If we emotionally invest in every one of these we’ll be exhausted by August.

Posted by: skip at June 29, 2004 02:06 PM

By the biginning of September Rove will be driving around Washington with Kerry’s lifeless, gutted corpse tied to the hood of his car. Come November, some Christian Republican groups will vote for Kerry as an expression of pure pity and Christian mercy.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at June 29, 2004 02:11 PM

This of course presumes Saddam’s trial begins mid-August.

As a side-note, Howard Dean may go down in history as the one man wrecking crew who demolished the Democratic Party by convincing their top movers and shakers to use Iraq against Bush and the Republicans.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at June 29, 2004 03:16 PM

Anglo - The link page says

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 1053 adults, interviewed by telephone June 23-27, 2004. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the entire sample. Error for subgroups may be higher.

Plus or minus 3 percentage points means the results were the same in all three polls shown.

Posted by: spud at June 29, 2004 03:20 PM

Kerry campaign ought to be sweating blood at this. I checked to make sure - the CBS/NYT sample is still biased towards the Democratic by six points. My first guess would have been a balancing spike - more Republicans than usual in the sample. No such thing. “Closer to” question, which does a good job of winnowing the stubborn Independents, actually had the elephants down a point from the last “eight points up” CBS/NYT. Rasmussen isn’t showing the usual weekend Kerry-bounce on its daily tracking poll, either.

I think the sound you just heard was the undecided Democrats rushing for the exits ahead of the patchouli-stink outgassing from last weekend’s F9/11 festival.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 29, 2004 03:20 PM

CBS/NY Times say it’s a dead heat.

This means that Bush is actually ahead 4-6 percentage points.

(See LA Times polling methods.)

Posted by: Danking70 at June 29, 2004 03:22 PM

Kaus is already all over this. It’s great, go and read it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103087/

One highlight is that in the race with Nader included, Bush is ahead. Another is the lengths to which NYT and CBS go to try to spin it as a Bush downtrend.

Posted by: samuelv at June 29, 2004 03:37 PM

Where did you get the sample numbers from Mitch?

Posted by: Lakhim at June 29, 2004 03:40 PM

I am not suprised by the poll results. Bush has created a terrible mess in Iraq. It seems he used our nation’s children to settle a family fued. Now with Fahrenheit 9/11 the top grossing movie in the country and the most seen film in every state Bush carried last election I am certain that this is just the beginning of the slip in poll numbers. I am a Republican and even I would have trouble voting for Bush again. Look at our National budget and if it doesn’t make you sick then maybe you should change parties. Reagan and George Bush SR both understood that faith is a private issue and not a basis for public policy. Bush’s fanatical Chistian beliefs have turned away me and many of my Republican friends. His “crusade” against terror is a complete failure and sadly it appears to be a Crusade…

Posted by: lincoln at June 29, 2004 04:13 PM

Well, hey, its the Republikan!!!

Lincoln, why do you continue with this charade?

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 29, 2004 04:30 PM

The fact than I am not an evangelical Christian is a charade? The fact that sound budgets matter to me is a fraud? Please, you are not making sense. Stick to the issues…

Posted by: lincoln at June 29, 2004 04:43 PM

OK, so much for lincoln’s outgassing.

Now what do the poll numbers really mean? Hey, it’s like the last Harry Potter movie: staring at the tea leaves is some how supposed to tell you the future.

I do think it’s good that people are becoming more skeptical about polling, this should help improve the quality of the data they provide.

And Lincoln, not everything in life is an opportunity for you to share your angst with the crowd here.

And speaking of sticking to the issues Lincoln, aside from your Bush Bashing agenda, where do you see the trends in America?

Posted by: skip at June 29, 2004 04:52 PM

The trends in America? Are speaking of loose fitting versus tight fitting clothing? Low-carb versus Low-fat diets? Or are you also seeing an increasingly skeptical public who feels that the have been lied to?

Posted by: lincoln at June 29, 2004 05:02 PM

LOL.

The fact than I am not an evangelical Christian is a charade?

No, how about the fact that you are not a Republican, Lincoln? Consistent with the fact that you, like so many of your “lib”uplikan buddies, clearly have an almost pathological predjudice against Christianity?

Oh wait, you’re probably a Christian, too. Just like you’re a Republican.

And a decorated armed forces veteran.

And a Nobel Prize Winner.

And a published author.

And a movie star.

And who voted for Reagan and Bush Sr.

Yes, please, stick to the issues, which are not, I might add, your clown act of pretending to be a Republican. It is not how you label yourself, Lincoln, but your beliefs which make you a liberal.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 29, 2004 05:03 PM

You mean I have to look to liberals to find balanced budgets? I am sorry but where I come from we Republicans do not feel it is appropriate to saddle future generations with massive debt. Are balanced budgets no longer important to any Republicans other tham myself?

Posted by: lincoln at June 29, 2004 05:11 PM

Lakhim: Last time the CBS/NYT came around, a guy posting by the name of Dubya pointed out how to read the running sample data. It’s towards the back of a thirty-two page pdf the NYT posts as a “multimedia” link from their online page about the poll.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 29, 2004 05:12 PM

///You mean I have to look to liberals to find balanced budgets?///

Gosh, haven’t you heard? Deficits are a pillar of the liberal playbook now!! C’mon, man, get with the program!! Keep up! Never mind 40 years of uncontrolled spending, its a crime against humanity in the eyes of liberals now for Congress to spend more than it takes in!

As long as its a Republican Congress doing the spending.

You’re going to have to do better than a disingenuous liberal catchphrase, Lincoln, to convince us that you’re a Republican. I mean, given what I’ve just told you, however would I distinguish you, a fine upstanding Republican, from some liberal, bigoted Christian-hating jackass who has to hide behind someone else’s ideology so people will take what he says seriously?

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 29, 2004 05:25 PM

I didn’t notice any significant slippage, in fact April and now both show almost identical results. Yes, it slipped in May, but bounced back pretty significantly, which should make John Kerry a little nervous.

As for using attendance Michael Moore’s propaganda piece as a sign Bush will lose, that is a little strange. First, you have to remove any moviegoer under 18, which would lessen the numbers. Second, you are assuming they are all registered to vote. Third, one movie making $21 million in its opening weekend does not mean it will continue to do that will.

Using a movie’s popularity as a basis for what will happen is really pointless and very subjective.

Posted by: Jeff M. at June 29, 2004 05:27 PM

Unlike “Dumb and Dumber,” the movie in question is not a fictional drama but it is what is called a “documentary.” It is said to be an extremely powerful piece by foes and fans alike. Will it be the Number 1 movie next week? I doubt it. Will images of Iraqi civilian and US military causlities coupled with reflection from actual soldiers in theater have a longer lasting impact on viewers than Jim Carry with a funny hair cut? You tell me…

Posted by: lincoln at June 29, 2004 05:43 PM

Jeff M.

Remember 2002 when Bowling For Columbine led to a democrat sweep of congress and govenorships.

Posted by: jones at June 29, 2004 05:56 PM

If you want to believe it is a documentary, go ahead, but its propaganda anyway. So, Michael Moore can select only the interviews that agree with his views, while dismissing all the rest.

Besides that, you are assuming everyone is going to see this movie. Since everyone is not going to see the movie, it will not have a lingering effect like you expect.

If you want to believe Michael Moore’s propaganda, knock yourself out. I am personally sick of his blovating about every topic in which he believes he said “expert.”

Posted by: Jeff M. at June 29, 2004 05:56 PM

I read the first four posts and man, you guys are good! The vision of Rove with Kerry on the hood made my coke run up thru my nose! (coca cola)… ha ha I just watched Kerry talking at the Rainbow/Push coalition crawling up Jesse’s ass…and halfway thru his speech he noticed many of the people were tuning out on him. He spoke pretty much over the top, which I call Hillary speak…he said I notice many of you are cynical but trust me…I am honest!! ha ha ha Yeah, thats a good way for a super rich man to voice his allegiance to the poor! Lets all chip in and see to it that Rove has a nice car to show off his trophy!

Posted by: dickD at June 29, 2004 06:29 PM

Moore calls his show a documentary, but given the fiction it really is, perhaps a new category of film needs to be defined: a focumentary.

Say that quick enough 3 times, and that more accurately describes this hateful film.

Sad that a nation, once attacked, needs to fight its war on two fronts - on the battlefield and against a whole class of Hanoi Janes. Osama, and all you Islamofacists, you have a friend in Moore, who is working very hard to weaken America. He thinks he’s very smart.

Posted by: Derek at June 29, 2004 07:48 PM

As long as the Bush supporters are pleased with their hero being behind in the polls, Kerry has nothing to fear. He will win.

Btw this CP site seems to have missed the news about Michael Berg’s interview.

So for those of you interested it can be found on the NYtimes.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:27 PM

Sorry forgot
www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-britain-berg.html

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:29 PM

It’s really funny to read the comments about Michael Moore’s work.

The fact that the public is queuing up to see his film/documentary a few months before the election makes the right fume with anger.

The thing is they can do nothing about it.

Just for that thank you Sir. You are the greatest American patriot alive.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:36 PM

Seeing as a majority of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake, I think Kerry’s real regret is that he voted for that resolution — makes it pretty tough for him to really attack Bush on the war. But reqardless, I think this election will be a referendum on the war.

Propoganda or not (like Rush Limbaugh is not a propagandist) Michael Moore’s boffo box office has to be making the President a little nervous. I personally think this will be like 2000 all over again, right down to the hanging chads, maybe in two or three states this time. Maybe we can steal this one back — would be fitting.

Posted by: rdelephant at June 29, 2004 08:46 PM

Rdelephant,

Given that the civil war is entisifying I am not as pessimistic as you are.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 09:04 PM

I think Kerry’s real regret is that he voted for that resolution—-

You poor guys just don’t get it. Within 90 days Kerry will be bragging about that vote again, as loud as he can. But it will be too late.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at June 29, 2004 10:31 PM

Dream on Jackson!

The Iraq civil war won’t stop before November.

Bush’s failures are catching up with him.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 10:40 PM

///Seeing as a majority of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake, ///

Not true. Every major poll has shown that a majority of Americans (who the majority of which, you guys continually remind us, think Saddam Hussein was tied to 9/11—according to you) supported action against Saddam Hussein. In addition, those numbers will only rise as US soldiers start to come home.

///Propoganda or not (like Rush Limbaugh is not a propagandist)///

Rush Limbaugh at least admits his bias, and that’s what you guys don’t get. Michael Moore isn’t simply a mild mannered filmmaker, minding his own business, which is what he would like us to believe. Yeah, he’s just reporting the facts. Sure he is.

///I personally think this will be like 2000 all over again///.

I don’t think its going to be nearly as close as you guys think.

///Maybe we can steal this one back — would be fitting.///

This is a pretty good indication that not only do you not know why you lost the first time, that you will be pretty bewildered when you lose this time. Look at any of 10 independent recounts of the entirety of Florida, some by non-partisan orgs, some by media organizations. All show the same thing: that Bush beat Gore In every one. Fair and square. I know it hurts, but its been four years, its time to MoveOn.

///But reqardless, I think this election will be a referendum on the war.///

You are right about that.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 01:44 PM

One last thing:

This election is John Kerry’s to win or lose. Bush is defined. People have made up their minds about him. It doesn’t matter what Bush does or doesn’t do. It only matters what Kerry does. This election will be decided by undecided voters, all right, but those people are undecided about whether to vote for Kerry over Bush. Not the other way around. Bush is a known quantity. If Kerry can convince the undecideds that he can do as good of a job or better than Bush, then he’ll win. From the low impact he is having in MY swing state, I doubt that that will happen.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 01:50 PM

johnnymozart…please watch the film and then make comments. How can you make intelligent comments on something you haven’t even seen? Even I, a proud Republican, was extremely moved by this picture. Hearing our own soldiers in theater question aloud the plan and motivation of this war of choice might even move you…if you weren’t affriad to watch it.

Posted by: lincoln at June 30, 2004 02:39 PM

Who said I didn’t watch it?

And when did I make comments about 9/11 at all?

Yes, I was particularly moved when he neglected in the movie to mention that the bin Laden family that was “spirited” out of the US (and who is not to my knowledge, suspected of any crime) were all interviewed by the FBI, and then when they were done, were approved to leave by Richard Clarke. After, I might add, air traffic began flowing again.

So yes, Lincoln, I as a proud Republican, was moved.

But only my stomach. (Note to readers-here’s a tip, if you want to see Fahrenheit 9/11, take seven fifty out of your pocket………and wipe your ass with it. Its about the same feeling.)

So I’m sure you, as a proud, loyal Republican, who only wants to see the best for his party, would see the speciousness of omitting details of that magnitude.

You. As a loyal, proud, Republican, I mean.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 04:57 PM

And by the way, who was the nimrod that suggested that “9/11” might stay at the top of the box office this week?

Spider-Man starts today.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 05:04 PM

Oh, and people who have no political axe to grind tend to not make political speeches at the Oscars.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 05:06 PM

Did you see the film? Sounds to me like you only read reviews. Just because I am Republican doesn’t mean I am closed minded. This is an amazing film and if you weren’t moved by scenes of civilian causalties and depressed US soldiers you have no soul. Humor me and let’s pretend you saw the film. What was the last quote from the movie?

Posted by: lincoln at June 30, 2004 05:50 PM

///Just because I am Republican doesn’t mean I am closed minded. ///

Sure you are. You just were. About whether or not I saw the film.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 05:55 PM

Oh, woops, didn’t see that last part before I posted.

Hmm…I’ll take a moment to savor the irony here, Lincoln.

(moment)

Gee, Lincoln, you’re asking me to take it on faith that you’re a Republican with a lot of evidence to the contrary. Guess you’ll just have to do the same.

Ta.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 05:57 PM

Oh, and I just noticed something else:

Your comment “Sounds to me like you only read reviews.

Well, gosh then, linc, that must mean that that information I said was omitted actually was in the movie. So you’re telling me I’m wrong? I should go see it again? Because it seemed very clear to me that that information was not part of the movie.

So perhaps you could provide a quote for me from the movie, Lincoln, where Michael Moore inserts this knowledge.

Because I, as a proud, loyal Michael Moore enthusiast, would not be wanting to sully his good name because of something I missed.

While I saw his movie, I mean.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 06:10 PM

You’re right, linc, this is actually kinda fun.

later.

Posted by: johnnymozart at June 30, 2004 06:11 PM

This is a left-wing rag’s comment on Moore’s Fabrications. They say he lies frequently. Moore has real Problems.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 1, 2004 01:23 PM

Am I the only Republican who isn’t affraid to see the film?

I wonder what else the “left-wing rag” article says:

“None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington—not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush’s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.”

It is not the movie reviewers or blog spewers that I really listen to. Listen to the soldiers in the film, listen to the civilians in the film, and most of all listen to Bush himself. Go see the movie, don’t be affriad, and you will realize that the above article only criticizes a fraction of the story told. It is very powerful but nothing you should cower in fear from.

Posted by: lincoln at July 1, 2004 02:09 PM

But Lincoln, I don’t understand why you, a fellow Republican, would continue to insist that I, a proud, loyal Michael Moore enthusiast, have not seen the movie when I have clearly told you that I have.

Further, I have asked you to show me where the information was that apparently was not there when I saw the movie. Because you haven’t. Why is that? Are you afraid to answer because I am going to vote for Bush?

Please help me out here, because I, as a loyal Michael Moore enthusiast, would not to defame him by implying that he purposely leaves out pertinent details in his assertions so as to deceive people into thinking that there exist associations where there are none.

I mean, that would be like….well, like implying that you’re not a Republican, which you have strenuously stated over and over that you are.

Just like I’ve seen the movie.

Posted by: johnnymozart at July 2, 2004 04:01 PM