Most people think Kerry is more qualified than Bush to be "commander in chief."

link

This has nothing at all to do with the increased terror alert, which includes information that may be a few months old, so stop saying that!

"They" want to get us! Duck and cover!

On edit: I don't know if the following is true, but if it is, it explains perfectly why the "major polls" are showing "no bounce," despite what common sense tells everyone: the number of people who voted for Gore before who will vote for Bush is much, much smaller than the folks who got bamboozled by Bush's "compassionate conservatism."

According to this guy on DU, a skeptic of the Kerry bounce, the polls are generally "weighted" to include a (fixed) ratio of Republicans to Democrats to Independents.

Now... suppose ... just suppose the ratios were wrong- as might be expected given over the past few years millions have turned out to demonstrate against Bush, F 9/11 has become the 244th highest grossing movie in history, The Nation is the number 1 political weekly, ...?

IOW, the ABC WaPo poll isn't weighting for an "assumed" number of Republicans, and so pretty accurately reflects rumors of a possible Kerry landslide.

I guess it's all lies by Michael Moore....right.

On edit again: Evidently that DU guy was right, at least for NYT/CBS polls:

And so was, ahem, Michael Moore:

Based on the 2000 presidential vote, residents of heavily Republican counties, heavily Democratic counties and politically competitive counties were weighted to their proper share of the population.

Disregading Gallup's numbers electionprojectoin.com shows the Kerry landslide.

Ah, now for the CNN/Gallup/USA Todaycoup de grace:

link...

Results based on likely voters are based on the subsample of 763 survey respondents deemed most likely to vote in the November 2004 general election, according to a series of questions measuring current voting intentions and past voting behavior.

Again, Moore's right, and the Right is wrong.