Big Mick, instead of attacking the poster, it would be helpful if you stuck to a discussion of the issues. Ad hominem attacks on me just shut down the discussion altogether.

For those of you who don't wish to/aren't already registered at the Washington Post, here are some excerpts from the article:

"A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey."

This would support my perception that I voiced earlier, that Bush will likely defeat Bush, not Kerry.

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and equal to the lowest of his presidency; only the war on terrorism continues to garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans.

As a result of these doubts, Bush narrowly trails likely Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry by 4 percentage points, 48 to 44 percent, among registered voters in a hypothetical presidential matchup. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, an independent, claims 3 percent."

This is 3% lower for Nader than the poll released last week, which I thought seemed unrealistically high.

"In a bit of good news for Bush, Nader is drawing essentially all of his support from Kerry, who leads Bush by 9 percentage points in a two-way matchup with the president -- an indication Nader could play the spoiler for Democrats in 2004 as he did four years ago. Underscoring that potential, nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run, while nearly half of all Republicans supported his move."

That last sentence answers McGrath's question.

"(S)ix in 10 Kerry supporters say they are voting for the Democrat more as a protest against Bush and his policies, and not because they are attracted to Kerry."

When you combine that damning statistic with this one, mentioned above:

"nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run"

which I noted left over 1/3 of Democrats unopposed to Nader's candidacy (although we don't know how many of them actually would support Nader), it shows a definite pattern. Support for Kerry is extremely soft across the board, and is being driven not by unity for him, but a desire to unseat Bush.

In 1988, that "anybody but Bush I" movement resulted in a weak Democratic candidate with soft support, and ended up with Bush in power. In 1992, the "anybody but Bush I" movement resulted in the extreme move by the Democratic elite to the right, which is where it remains today. And based upon the current assumed nominee's proclivity to hire everyone who worked in the Clinton administration to work on his campaign, I'd say the party isn't set to move back to the center, much less towards the left, anytime soon.

Which makes the Kucinich and Nader campaigns so crucial in this election year.