Sen. Graham trails President Bush in new poll

[Freddie Stubbs]

Bob Graham's status as Florida's favored son is proving little match for a relatively popular president, despite a post-war slip in George W. Bush's approval rating among Floridians, a poll shows.

If Graham were the Democratic nominee for president and the election were held today, he would lose to President Bush 51 to 39 percent, according to the poll.

The survey, with a margin of error of four percentage points, shows that Graham's run for the presidency -- and perhaps his sharp attacks on the Bush presidency -- has cost Graham points with Florida voters who crossed party lines to support him over four decades as a state legislator, two-term governor and senator.

The numbers call to question Graham's claim that despite his slow start for the Democratic nomination, he's the Democrat in the best position to deliver Florida's coveted 27 electoral votes.

more: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/6465621.htm

[glasschains]

1. Graham is just awful

God he is DULL! I don't even want to see on the ticket as Vice-President. Cheney would rip him a new one. I mean, come on, the guy writes in his journal everytime he goes to the can,. Weird!

[displacedvermoter]

6. I have to ask this, but do you support any Democratic candidate?

I just popped on and have -- in a short time and with your limited number of posts -- seen you bash Dean, Kuchinich, and Graham, and since you think it is bad politics to attack Bush on his lies and mistatements, I assume that means you probably don't agree with any Dem candidate but Lieberman.

Do you have a candidate you support or are you just a bomb thrower?

[lkinsale]

9. Come, come

Bush is AWFUL. Cheney is a nightmare.

Graham is saying scary stuff, like Bush is making us LESS SAFE by going into Iraq, allowing al Queda to regroup, and underfunding homeland security issues. It's scary and true, and some people don't want to hear it. They'd rather pretend along with Bush that he's made big strides to make us safe.

If you want a candidate to pretend along with them, like Lieberman, yeah, I guess Graham isn't your man. If you want a president with experience, wisdom and the common sense God gave a duck, he is.

*****

Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)

[buff2]

2. My question is this:

With the mess this idiot has created in this country and everywhere else,how in the world can ANY candidate "trail" him??? This country is in a sorry mess thanks to the doofus in chief and it boggles the mind how anyone can think he is doing such a great job. Geez.. :crazy:

[cjbuchanan]

3. Because Bush & Co. control the agenda

This poll means nothing. Just like all the other polls that match Bush vs. one of the Democrat nine. Most people are not yet paying attention to this race. Once there is a nominee and their own agenda is put forward, then these polls will begin to mean something.

[1monster]

4. I agree. The poll means nothing.

I mean who are the people who are polled anyway?

I used to get at least one poll call per election season, but haven't had any type of election poll for three or so years. Now the only "poll" calls I get are from vacation club time shares trying to make me think I've won something. :eyes:

As for another poster's worry about Graham's detailing everything, I'd say that would make him the man to go to when wanting to know what was said and what happened at any given time. Sometimes that can be important. It is a harmless (and probably sometimes helpful)idiosyncrasy and probably a habit he got into very young.

[glasschains]

5. Graham is a loser

Keep him away from the ticket.

Bush was leading Gore at this point in '99. Yes, it's true. And there were about 7 candidates for the Repubs in the race then. The Dems are way behind and need a near miracle to win. Better to start with the truth and work from there.

[displacedvermoter]

7. Bomb thrower, I think!

Miracle to win? And I thought speaking about Bush's lack of truth was a non-starter? So what truth is it you want us to start with?

[seafan]

8. Not so fast. It's just Karl Rove spinning us into oblivion again.

Hold on a minute, folks. Once again, Rove is trying to obscure the facts.

Once again our *unbiased* and friendly, corporate Bu$hCo-tainted media responds to the scary facts. Take a look at the Mason-Dixon poll itself. The Miami Herald is deliberately prevaricating, hiding and spinning the actual numbers from its own report.


---quote---

2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE BUSH GRAHAM UND

April 2003 53% 38% 9%

July 2003 51% 39% 10%

---end quote---


So when the Herald *trumpets* that in late July,'03, Bob Graham is *diving* in his own state's polls, and they shout that the polling for the next Presidential election puts Bush=51% vs Graham=39%, they strangely *neglect* to mention that the same polling question in April put Bush at 53% vs Graham at 38%.

Well, look at that, Bush is actually the *divee* and Graham actually increased in his standing among the voters since April! Whaddya know.



And look at this. Don't you love this formatting? You'd *think* that the editor at the Miami Herald would format the numbers into vertical columns underneath their headings to make it easier for people to read and analyze, but NNOOOOOOOOOO....


---quote---

G.W. BUSH JOB PERFORMANCE EXC GOOD FAIR POOR UND

February 2001 10% 42% 28% 7% 13%

January 2002 43% 37% 14% 6% -

July 2003 22% 36% 23% 19% -

---end quote---


Well, look at this. Looks like George's *excellent* job performance rating decreased from 43% in Jan '02 to 22% in July '03. And his *good* performance numbers dropped from 37% in Jan '02 to 36% in July '03. His *fair* rating rose from 14% in Jan '02 to 23% in July '03, compensating for the decreases in the excellent/good ratings. AND, AND... Bush's *POOR* job performance rating INCREASED from 6% in Jan '02 to 19% in July '03. Whoa, that's quite a different picture from *the nosedive of Bob Graham in his own state's polls*! It won't work, Karl.


Here's another interesting section. Again, you would *think* that the editor of this Herald piece would format for clarity in a table for the readers..... thanks, Karl, for hastening our bifocal age.


---quote---

QUESTION: If the 2004 presidential election were held today, would you vote to re-elect Republican George Bush, would you consider voting for a Democratic challenger, or would you definitely vote to replace Bush with a Democrat?

STATE MEN WOMEN DEMS REPS INDS

RE-ELECT 45% 49% 41% 12% 81% 48%

CONSIDER DEM 18% 19% 17% 23% 12% 17%

REPLACE W/DEM 33% 29% 37% 61% 3% 29%

NOT SURE 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 6%

---end quote---


So, looking at the statewide poll figures in the left-hand column for the BIG PICTURE, it looks like 51% of voters polled said they would either outright, or seriously consider voting for A DEMOCRAT in 2004. And that only 45% said they would vote for Bush. Wow, that is QUITE a different picture from *ole Bob needs to quit, because he doesn't have a chance*, isn't it? This is outright prevarication by the media.

Once again, we see how the friendly corporate media go out of their way to spin, spin, spin for the home team. And it has to stop.


Here is the link to the info above:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6464039.htm



And one other thing. If you need any more proof that the media are complicit in the race to keep truth from Americans, take a look at today's issue of the Sayfie Review (daily Florida headlines). Look at the flashing, rotating lights over the headline "GRAHAM'S POPULARITY PLUNGES TO HISTORIC LOW". More evidence of the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, outright lying and intentional efforts to twist the truth. This deceit has to stop.

I still can't get over those flashing lights.

http://www.sayfiereview.com



:mad: :mad: :mad:

[CMT]

10. your analyses of the results is right on target

You have to look at the re-elect figures and Bush is under 50% in Florida and it will be competitive in 2004. Graham's standing is improving and at this early date all of our candidates are trailing Bush in their homestates according to the most recent polls.

[Virginian]

12. I have an idea

On the 2000 Florida ballot, there was a presidential candidate by the name of Monica Morehead running under some third party.

I think she was put there as a subtle reminder of the Lewinsky incident. I don't really believe she was seriously attempting to be president (If she exists). Maybe someone in Florida has met her or saw her campaign. If they did, I would like to know that she is real.

I think Ronald Reagan, Jr. should run as a third party candidate in 2004. He wouldn't have to campaign, just get his name on the ballot. There are so many uninformed voters that I think he would suck votes away from the neo-clones and other Republicans based entirely on name recognition. After all, Dubya got a lot of his votes that way.

[GBD4]

11. Sayfie Review

While I love SR and rely on it for all my daily news, it is run by a former Jeb operative, and so once in a while you do get those stupid headlines up top which are always anti-Democrat whether it's the 02 Gov race, 04 Sen race, or Graham and the 04 Pres race. :(

Agree, those lights are really ridiuclous, SR has the link to the full numbers on the same page! How ignorant can one be?