STORM2K

When adding Ralph Nader, it's Kerry 46% Bush 42% Nader 4%.

36% satisfied with the way things are going in the country with 59% dissatisfied.

Bush overall job approval rating is 49% which is similar to what it has been as of late.

55% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy with 41% approving.

51% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq with 44% approving.

59% approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and homeland security.

Here's a key number: 42% believe that by invading Iraq the threat of a large scale attack on the US is increased.

Still, 57% remain confident that the Bush administration did the right thing in going to Iraq and 63 percent would support sending more troops if necessary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4709863/

Hopefully things can clear up some in Iraq by election time or Bush will have a hard time getting re-elected.

Different polls will tell different stories, especially since each poll can have its questions so couched that the respondent's answers will favor the pollster's bias.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, ladies and gents...

<------------

Eric

AFLAC!

newsweek works for the dems. they have no credibility:

Newsweek piece 'doesn't add up'



With a gigantic IRS 1040 income-tax form covering a slightly ajar door presumably leading to a room filled with tightly guarded information, the headline of Newsweek's current cover story screams: "The Dirty Little Secret of the Tax Cut: Why It's Smaller Than You Think." Inside, the article greets the reader with the bold assertion: "Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up." But the only thing that doesn't add up is the article itself. It is replete with misstatements and distortions masquerading as the real-life experiences of Americans since President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003.
The article showcases three middle-class families and includes photos of smiling children and parents, who invariably are quoted as saying they have derived virtually no benefit from the Bush tax cuts. All are utterly misinformed. Newsweek's uncritical portrayal of their demonstrably false assertions amounts to nothing more than a reprehensible journalistic hit piece.
Newsweek first highlights "single-mom" Jennifer Evans and her 7-year-old son. Miss Evans earned $32,400 in 2003. "I kept hearing about these so-called tax cuts," Miss Evans says. "They're not benefiting regular working people," she declared, a patently false assertion that Newsweek chose to emphasize by placing it in boldface type. In fact, Ms. Evans' income tax was reduced by $1,000, or 45 percent. Specifically, she saved $500 from the new 10 percent bracket, which applies to her first $10,000 in taxable income (which had been taxed at 15 percent before Mr. Bush's tax cuts). She saved another $500 after Mr. Bush doubled (from $500 to $1,000) the per-child tax credit.
Newsweek next featured the Taverno family (two parents and three children). Ron and Patty Taverno earned $73,411 last year. Newsweek reports that "they saved a few hundred dollars this year because the 'marriage penalty' [note the quotes] was eliminated." Mr. Taverno boldly declares, "The tax cut to me was inconsequential" &#8212; which Newsweek dutifully placed in boldface. In fact, rather than just "a few hundred dollars," the Tavernos saved $626 from the elimination of the marriage penalty. And they saved another $700 from the new 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to their first $14,000 in taxable income. And the doubling of the per-child tax credit cut another $1,500 from their tax bill. Altogether, the Bush tax cuts slashed more than $2,800, or 44 percent, from the Tavernos' 2003 income-tax bill. This is "inconsequential"?
The Ellis family (two parents, two children) was next up. Ted and Erania Ellis earned $194,000 last year. "There's been no break for us," artist Ted tells Newsweek, which boldfaced the falsehood. "It feels like I'm being penalized for trying to run my own business. It doesn't feel like they're helping me. The tax cuts," he ignorantly asserts, "are benefiting major corporations who are downsizing and outsourcing."
Here's the breakdown on our calculations: (1) The 10 percent bracket chopped off $700. (2) By increasing the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly by $1,650 to a level ($9,500) that is now a little more than twice the standard deduction ($4,700) for singles, the Bush tax cuts reduced the Ellis family's taxable income by $1,650. Because the family now finds itself in the 28 percent tax bracket (thanks, by the way, to Mr. Bush's 3-percentage-point reduction from 31 percent), this portion of marriage-penalty relief saved the Ellises $462 ($1,650 x 28 percent = $462). Also, by increasing the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples by $9,400 to a level ($56,800) that is now double the 15 percent level for singles, the Bush tax cuts sliced another $940 from the Ellis tax bill. Total marriage-penalty savings: $1,402. (3) The Bush tax cuts reduced the 31 percent and 28 percent brackets by 3 percentage points each. This reduced income taxes for the Ellis family by another $3,797. (4) Finally, doubling the per-child tax credit to $1,000 saved the Ellises another $1,000.
In total, the Ellis family will save $6,899 from its 2003 income taxes. That represents a monthly savings of $575. "There's been no break for us," Newsweek allowed Mr. Ellis to assert falsely, showcasing the lie in boldface, no less.
The dirty little secret is that Newsweek has published a dirty little story, which it surely had to know was filled with distortions and misrepresentations. Indeed, Newsweek actively contributed to these misrepresentations by boldfacing them.
washington times.

newsweek should have known their lies would be exposed.

Yes most polls show a dead heat or a race within the margin of error.

The Newsweek poll isn't that far off and you shouldn't trash it just because the numbers may be a little different than the other polls.

Of course if it showed Bush 50% Kerry 43% then 90% of the conservatives here would be worshipping it.

Of course if it showed Bush 50% Kerry 43% then 90% of the conservatives here would be worshipping it.

Now I have seen tons of people say this same exact thing over here. And I can tell you thats just not realy the case with most here in this comunity. A poll in April dosent mean a THING.. Its like watching a stock daily. Will just drive you nuts

chadtm80 wrote:

Of course if it showed Bush 50% Kerry 43% then 90% of the conservatives here would be worshipping it.

Now I have seen tons of people say this same exact thing over here. And I can tell you thats just not realy the case with most here in this comunity. A poll in April dosent mean a THING.. Its like watching a stock daily. Will just drive you nuts

I wouldn't go so far as to say that polls don't mean a thing, but I would agree that aren't as significant now as they will be this Fall. I think if you look at a collection of polls though you will see a nation divided almost down the middle. Certainly based on what the news is the numbers will go up and down.

My 90% comment was kind of tongue in cheek and the lack of an emoticon was my fault. Sorry.

not at all, i just dont think the american people will vote for a man who the terrorists are praying will win. especially with such a great economy. if they do however, the american people will deserve what they get.

We didn't vote for the one we got now.

Captain Har wrote:We didn't vote for the one we got now.

Most of us did.

Gore 50,996,039 Bush 50,456,141 you do the math.

Captain Har wrote:Gore 50,996,039 Bush 50,456,141 you do the math.

Captain Har wrote:Gore 50,996,039 Bush 50,456,141 you do the math.

Electoral votes:
*Bush - 271
*Gore - 266

Excerpt from Article II and Amendment XII of the US Constitution:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector....

...The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.