Drudhe has links to a pair of surveys showing John Kerry beating George W. Bush in the general election.
CNN has Kerry ahead 53-46, and Quinnipiac University has it pegged at 51-42.
Neither poll is worth baseball cap full of killer bees.
Whenever it looks like the new guy has the nomination wrapped up, he shoots up in the polls. At this time in 1984, Mondale looked strong against Reagan. Dukakis polled better than Bush in the spring (hell, even the summer) of '88. That's just the way it works.
I'm not saying that Bush isn't vulnerable. Far from it -- I've spent the last couple of weeks, at least, explaining just how vulnerable I think he is. But don't put much stock in early polls pitting an incumbent who everyone is bored with against the (comparatively) fresh-faced newcomer. Even when the newcomer has a face as worn as Kerry's.
Kerry's face is worn, right? I mean, how else did it get so smooth?
Normally I think it's bad form to criticize people's looks, make up, clothing, etc. unless they're in a beauty contest.
That said, Kerry and Michael Jackson are exceptions to that rule. They both had fairly nice looking faces before they started tinkering with them. Now they both look sub-human, and Kerry unfortunately is suffering from bearing an uncanny resemblance to the walking and talking trees in the second LOTR episode that practically every English speaking person in the world has seen at least once.
As for polls showing Kerry beating Bush by ten points. Seems unlikely to me.
My guess would be embalmer's wax...
Here on the liberal east coast I know people jumping up and down over these poll numbers. I point out the Mondale and Dukakis history to them to no avail. Bush is vulnerable but these polls are garbage (remember Dean was invincible 2 weeks ago)
