I've become convinced that current polling techniques fail to register the change in the electorate since 9-11. Many others have made this point but the following article is the best illustration to date:
I'm a Democrat for Bush
"So here I am in deep Kerry territory, surrounded by designer Democrats who are far wealthier than me, harbouring a secret and deeply untrendy thought.
Darn them all, despite being a registered Democrat and in my London days a staunch Labour supporter I am going to vote for George Dubya.
When the metrosexual chap standing next to me confides that urban sophisticates prefer Kerry because you have to have a low IQ to appreciate Bush, I know I am making the right decision.
The guy is an idiot, he continued snobbishly. I don't know what the rest of the country is thinking.
Perhaps I can enlighten him. I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president's judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry's. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple. Even in the New York metropolis, there are more of us out there than he imagines...
My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush's defeat. They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede.
But, if Bush is ousted, there will be victory celebrations across the undemocratic Arab world. More martyrs will step forward, eager to play their part in the decline of the West...
I was standing next to the World Trade Center, gazing in horror at the torment above, when the towers collapsed. I was showered with pulverised masonry and the ashes of nearly 3,000 people. I decided fairly quickly that America was a beacon of freedom that needed defending against the anti-western, freedom-hating religious bigots and death cultists. I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown.
When Bush said in last week's debate: "We can be safe and secure if we go on the offence against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world," I felt he spoke with conviction. When Kerry said he was going to "hunt and kill" the terrorists, I heard a politician's soundbite...
I did manage to tempt one person out of the closet at last week's awards ceremony. Alexandra Wolfe, 24, the daughter of Bonfire of Vanities novelist Tom Wolfe, confessed she was intending to vote Republican.
"If I say it out loud, it's death," (emphasis mine) she whispered. "In a place like this, people look at you like you are a freak. I believe in abortion and I totally believe Kerry is right on some social issues, but I just don't trust him on terrorism.
"I feel that Bush has the character to say, 'They did us wrong, and I'm going to get them back." Kerry can talk the talk, but that's all he's good at..."
Christopher Hitchens, the left-wing British writer who lives in America, said he first understood the uncompromising nature of Islamic fundamentalism when Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a sentence of death on his friend Salman Rushdie in 1989. The ultra-liberal Rushdie's only offence was to write a novel, The Satanic Verses.
Although the penny did not fully drop at the time, the fatwa helped Hitchens later to make sense of the attacks on America. To the fury of his old comrades, (emphasis mine) he too will be voting for Bush in November...
I'm bitterly disappointed by the way Bush has botched the post-war situation. The neoconservatives with the ear of the president wilfully underestimated Iraqi nationalist sentiments. I feel horribly ashamed about the degrading behaviour of American guards at Abu Ghraib prison.
I am not alone, however, in both hating the mess and preferring Bush over Kerry as president.
Ron Radosh, a friend of Bob Dylan in the 1960s, voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s. For him, the deteriorating conditions in Iraq have been a source of anguish even though he has some sympathy for the neocons. "Bush has totally mishandled the situation," he said. "The administration was unable to listen to people who thought the aftermath of the war wouldn't be a piece of cake."
Like me, he would rather vote for Blair than Bush. "You think, Jeez, why can't Bush make speeches like him?", but he is going to hold his nose and cast his ballot for Dubya (emphasis mine). When he read last week that Kerry thought terrorism could be reduced to a 'nuisance', like prostitution and gambling, he decided: "That's it. I don't care what Kerry says, he cannot be trusted. We're in a sustained war. It's a serious matter."
A few days ago Radosh sent a round-robin e-mail to his friends announcing his intentions. "I've had scores of e-mails back attacking me as a traitor," (emphasis mine) he said. One well-known historian replied: "How anybody with a mind can say they'll vote for Bush is beyond me. He is the most extremist president in history." Another old friend said: "Don't you want to leave your grandchildren the legacy of a better world?"...
Here's why this article supports the proposition that Bush's 3-4 point lead today will be a blowout on Nov. 2: Otherwise died in the wool liberals are will vote for not just a Republican but a conservative Republican; and they know they will be vilified by their liberal comrades. This means that there is likely a significant number of liberals who can't say they will vote for Bush because they are in earshot of a liberal partner or relative when the phone rings and the pollster asks who they will vote for.
Nevertheless, people are not without common sense. Those who work in high rises in liberal cities like New York and San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles know full well that the evil doers who are beheading hostages in Iraq would love to be decapitating buildings like they saw their theological brethren do on Sept. 11. These same liberals know that George Bush is serious about killing these fanatic terrorists before they can train, raise money, find recruits and safe haven. They also know that John Kerry is not serious about doing what is necessary to take the fight to the terrorists.
And that's why Bush will likely win 40 states, and another election.