TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Tough Week for Kerry/Demise of the Kerry Campaign
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Tough Week for Kerry/Demise of the Kerry Campaign

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956557/

quote:

A week's worth of bad news for Bush foes Polls: Kerry behind in key states, tied in heavily Democratic ones By Tom Curry National affairs writer MSNBC Updated: 12:26 p.m. ET Sept. 10, 2004 WASHINGTON - While arguments over the authenticity of purported Vietnam-era memos consumed the presidential race Friday, new poll results held little but bad news for Sen. John Kerry. advertisement The memo battle was the culmination of a week�s worth of disappointment for adversaries of President Bush: Forensics experts say that documents CBS News used in a story contending Bush disobeyed an order from his Air National Guard commander in 1972 are suspicious and may be fakes. Democrats had hoped the documents would damage Bush's re-election hopes. On Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of Kerry's outspoken supporters, had said, "The documentation shows that the president was not being truthful. The president lied to the American people in the Oval Office." But as the National Guard document furor raged, Kerry confronted a welter of discouraging poll numbers in states from Ohio to Arizona. Even in heavily Democratic New Jersey, which Al Gore carried in 2000 by more than 500,000 votes, Kerry's lead over Bush had slipped from 20 points to a mere four, a new Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll found. Given the poll�s margin of error, Bush and Kerry are statistically tied in New Jersey, just as a Gallup poll this week found they are tied in neighboring Pennsylvania. Polls are simply snapshots of a few days of respondents� thinking, but Kerry cannot win the election if he loses New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which together supply 36 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Where to compete Economists use the term �sunk costs� to describe outlays that have been made and can�t be recovered. At some point in every presidential campaign, strategists must confront the issue of sunk costs for states that once appeared competitive, but now are starting to seem beyond reach. In most of the dozen or so states that experts have considered toss-ups, neither Bush nor Kerry has yet reached the point of withdrawing money and advertising. But Kerry and his staff may be at the juncture at which they must decide that the six days he has spent campaigning in Missouri since June 1 are sunk costs, not likely to be recovered. A Gallup poll released Wednesday night showed Bush with a 14-point lead among likely voters in Missouri, 55 percent to 41 percent over Kerry. Writing off Missouri and its 11 electoral votes would shrink the map for Kerry and expand it for Bush, allowing the president to spend more time in states that Gore won in 2000: Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. The poll data may even encourage Bush to take the battle to New Jersey. Kerry's Ohio decision In Ohio, Kerry may soon face perhaps an even more difficult choice than he does in Missouri: The Gallup poll released Wednesday night showed Kerry behind Bush by nine percentage points among likely voters there, winning 52 percent, while Kerry got 43 percent and Ralph Nader 2 percent Since June 1, Kerry has spent 12 days campaigning in the state. Kerry and his Democratic allies ran a heavy television advertising barrage in the state in the month of August: Six of their 10 most heavily saturated media markets in the country were in Ohio, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. If he cannot pry Ohio�s 20 electoral votes away from Bush, who won the state by 165,000 votes in 2000, then the electoral math becomes extraordinarily difficult for Kerry. To get the numbers to add up to the 270 he needs, Kerry would have to win all the states Gore won in 2000, then he�d have to add Nevada, with five electoral votes, and New Hampshire, with four, and then just one more state. But what is that one more state, if not Ohio? Perhaps Florida. If not Florida, then Arizona? In an Arizona Republic poll released Thursday, Bush leads Kerry, by 54 percent to 38 percent, among 600 likely voters. (As with the Gallup polls cited above, the Arizona poll�s margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.) The Kerry campaign does not plan to run any TV ads in Arizona this month. Seeking answers as to why Kerry is lagging behind Bush, some Democrats have turned to polling data; others, such as former Rep. Tony Coelho of California have cited errors Kerry�s advisers made in trying to explain his position on Iraq. Public views on Iraq A Washington Post/ABC News poll released late Thursday showed that 53 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush to do a better job of handling the situation in Iraq, while 37 percent trusted Kerry on Iraq � this despite the fact that U.S. casualties surpassed 1,000 during one of the days on which the poll was conducted. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents said they trusted Bush to do a better job combating terrorism, compared to 35 percent who trusted Kerry to do a better job. Kerry�s poll numbers underscore the importance of the debates between him and Bush. So far the Bush campaign has not agreed to the three dates announced by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Both Bush�s and Kerry�s weaknesses will be on display. For Bush, the moment he�ll need to avoid is the one that he displayed in his April 13 press conference when he halted and seemed stymied by the question of what mistakes he had made since Sept. 11, 2001. For Kerry, the problem is answering that very first question of the debate and doing it crisply, memorably in one minute, thirty seconds. Kerry�s rhetorical tendency is to ramble, adding qualifiers and subordinate clauses along the way. Change in Democrats' views Every presidential campaign has its ebbs and flows, and Democrats have gone through cycles of hope and despair over Kerry�s prospects. Two weeks from today, they may be feeling as ebullient as they felt at the Democratic convention in Boston. In April, Democratic activists were agonizing over what they saw as Kerry�s failure to clearly tell voters why they should elect him. Then in late May, in the wake of Abu Ghraib prison abuse furor, Democrats pressed their attack on Bush and seemed confident Kerry would win. But Kerry was unable to capitalize on the momentum generated by Abu Ghraib. Perhaps it was due to lack of focus on the issue of Bush�s competence to conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terrorists. Kerry�s own unforced errors � such as saying he would have voted for using force against Iraq even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction there � almost certainly have played a role in his sagging poll numbers. Kerry�s Democratic allies view him as someone who is categorically superior to Bush in preparation, intellectual ability and knowledge of the world. Richard Holbrooke, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said in May that Kerry �will be the most knowledgeable president coming into office in a long time.� Kerry has �lived overseas, has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years, (and) knows the international community,� Holbrooke said. Rep. Jane Harman, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, portrayed Kerry as more thoughtful and better read than Bush. �You have to read books, you have to know world leaders, you have to think about these issues � not just delegate to others who do that,� she said in May. In a comment Thursday, Teresa Heinz Kerry seemed to reflect Democratic frustration that Kerry�s ideas are not yet winning acceptance. Touting her husband�s health insurance proposal she said, �Only an idiot wouldn't like this. Of course, there are idiots." Idiots or not, a good number of likely voters have not yet seen Kerry as his wife and his admirers portray him: an unquestionably superior president. Only 36 percent of the respondents in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said they had a favorable impression of him, compared to 54 percent who viewed him favorably in March. � 2004 MSNBC Interactive

Pretty ridiculous to have a democrat nominee losing ground in key democratic states..LOL..not to mention some polls have BUSH AHEAD OF KERRY IN OREGON!!!!!!

Bush has basically closed the deal in Missouri..the Kerry campaign has ceased with television ads in that state. Bush is pulling in Ohio. Bush is pulling in just about every swing state,however Bush is evenly tied with Kerry in Penn.....where Kerry needs to win and if he doesnt he is done.

Just shows that the democrats have no idea how to run a campaign, they weren't tough enough and when they were it backfired. Look for instance at the Bush memos...it should of been a golden point for his campaign...but what occurs today? Everyone is talking about the authencity of these documents to being forged. This backfired soo bad on his campaign it wasnt even funny. I really feel bad now for the guy. Clinton told him to stop talking about vietnam but first thing he does is go run ads on vietnam attacking BUSH....now these documents are being held suspicious by the majority of experts:

quote:

include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday.

The coffin is closing folks


Link1

LINk2

Link3

Link4

I know it's fun to pat yourself on the back 1 week after your party's convention. Heck, I did it myself back in early August.

But the road is long, and as I've said over and over, nothing is really statistically significant by these polls until the final coupla weeks.

Here's an alternative perspective:


Three key points about the latest polling.

1. Polls that were taken after the GOP convention show either a Bush lead or a dead heat. Definitive assessments are not possible.

Here's how the race stands with registered voters ("likely voter" models are junk - http://www.emergingdemocraticmajori...ives/000635.php) in polls taken since Sept. 2.

Three polls are essentially a tie:

CNN-USA Today-Gallup
Bush 49
Kerry 48

Fox News
Bush 47
Kerry 45

The Economist (via Political Wire)
Bush 46
Kerry 45

(Note: Fox is only polling so-called "likely voters", not "registered voters")
Two polls (the ones you probably heard about) have Bush with relatively sizeable leads:

ABC-W. Post
Bush 50
Kerry 44

CBS
Bush 49
Kerry 42

Also, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows a tie (Bush 47.5 - Kerry 46.8) as of this writing.

(Keep in mind that tracking polls are meant to gauge movement, not provide accurate snapshots of support. The movement is slightly in Kerry's direction since the convention.)

Now overall, this is a shift to Bush from where the polls were in early August, when almost every poll had a Kerry lead.

But one can't accurately say Bush has a clear lead when most polls show a tie.

2. Kerry does better in the battleground.

The Gallup poll, which shows a 1 pt Bush lead nationally, has Kerry up 5 pts (50-45) in the battleground states, according to Donkey Rising.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajori...ives/000642.php

W. Post says in "19 battleground states�the two candidates are running even," while Bush has a 6 pt lead nationally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0-2004Sep9.html

In both cases, Kerry performs better in the battleground than nationally.

Why might this be?

Perhaps the hard-right mega-negative convention played better in the Red states, widening Bush's lead in areas that won't matter on Election Day.

It also may mean that since Kerry's working local media markets hard in the battleground, he's getting fairer treatment there.

Similarly, it also may speak well to his ad campaign, which non-battleground voters don't see much of.

3. There's no getting around Kerry's negatives were raised by the GOP convention onslaught.

Even in the dead heat polls, Kerry lost ground in areas like leadership, personality, ability to fight terror, flip-flopping and favorability.

Of course, there's still conflicting data.

In the Gallup poll, Kerry's favorable-unfavorable rating is 53-43, down from 57-37 after the Dem convention.

Not good, but manageable (Bush is a similar 55-44).

The CBS poll, which appears not to have pushed undecideds to choose, has far worse data for Kerry: 32-41 (with Bush at 47-39).

Can a candidate win with unfavorables in the 40s?

Well, yes. Bill Clinton did in 1992.

Near the end of the race, his fav-unfav was similarly polarizing and conflicting: 51-45 (Gallup), 52-45 (LA Times) and 33-39 (CBS/NYT).

It's not that there was widespread love for Clinton, who was dogged with attacks on his "character" by Poppy Bush, and won with just 43%.

In fact, a late CNN/Time poll had vastly more people saying Poppy was more "honest and trustworthy" than Clinton.
But Poppy's fav-unfav was still worse than Clinton, with his unfavorables generally in the low 50s.

That's Kerry goal, to jack up Bush's negatives.

Like any Bush campaign, this race will be filled with muck, making it impossible to stay positive and generate warm feelings.

Kerry can't expect his unfavorable numbers to go back down to the 30s.

But with Bush probably at his high-water mark, just after his convention, Kerry should be able to get Bush's unfavorables higher than his.

This is not to say Kerry shouldn't try to talk himself up and articulate his compelling, alternative agenda.

It's always a balancing act: promoting yourself, tearing down the other guy.

And since Kerry can't single-handedly put this campaign on the high road, going after Bush is the bigger priority.


Source: liberaloasis.com (blog)


-AND-

quote:

The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site. A new Survey USA poll ending Sept. 8 in Ohio, shows the race tightening there. Bush's 9% lead is now down to 3% there. He is now leading 50% to 47%. Bush's lead is also dropping in North Carolina (now 4%) and Virginia (now only 3%). Maybe the South will rise again (for Kerry, this time). At the very least, if Bush has to fight for some of the southern states, that will divert time and money from the Midwest. One piece of good news for Bush comes from an unlikely state: New Jersey. Kerry's lead in New Jersey is falling precipitously. It is down to 4% now, 43% to 39%, with Nader at 5%. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Nader will really get 5% there, or anywhere. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

D'oh!

Nice change of topic, Opus!

I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end!

Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign. Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face. If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better.

I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there.

Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka D'oh! Nice change of topic, Opus! I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end! Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign. Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face. If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better. I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there. Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum.

I say he is shooting himself in the foot with the memos scandal.
But more power to him.....

The way I see it, Kerry was never the democratic nominee of choice. In the end, they had to settle on him. First it was Howard "Yeeeeaaahhhhh" Dean, who took care of himself. Then it was Wesley Clark who was a joke to begin with. Then it was Geppy, Leiberman, Sharpton, and the rest of the goofballs that nobody could take seriously. And then there was Kerry, who shrewdly kept his mouth shut and was the ugly-guy on stage during the primaries. Eventually, he was all that was left that could be taken semi-seriously(I mean Dennis Kucinich? C'mon!). In the end, Kerry was what the Democrats had to settle with and now it's funny to watch people rally around him simply because they don't like Bush. People are cheering Kerry like he's the 2nd coming of Christ, but in reality I bet there aren't that many people who know 2 shits about him. It's not like he's actually come out and said HOW he plans to accomplish anything. He's just made a bunch of pie-crust promises and gotten a bunch of loud mouths out there screaming his name. His initials are JFK! We must vote for him! He is the 2nd coming!!! Unless he can pull some serious repositioning, I think he might've peaked at the DNC. He's rapidly running out of legs to stand on.

Then again, the good stuff is just getting started. My popcorn is ready! This is what politics is all about. Fun ain't it!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The way I see it, Kerry was never the democratic nominee of choice. In the end, they had to settle on him. First it was Howard "Yeeeeaaahhhhh" Dean, who took care of himself. Then it was Wesley Clark who was a joke to begin with. Then it was Geppy, Leiberman, Sharpton, and the rest of the goofballs that nobody could take seriously. And then there was Kerry, who shrewdly kept his mouth shut and was the ugly-guy on stage during the primaries. Eventually, he was all that was left that could be taken semi-seriously(I mean Dennis Kucinich? C'mon!). In the end, Kerry was what the Democrats had to settle with and now it's funny to watch people rally around him simply because they don't like Bush. People are cheering Kerry like he's the 2nd coming of Christ, but in reality I bet there aren't that many people who know 2 shits about him. It's not like he's actually come out and said HOW he plans to accomplish anything. He's just made a bunch of pie-crust promises and gotten a bunch of loud mouths out there screaming his name. His initials are JFK! We must vote for him! He is the 2nd coming!!! Unless he can pull some serious repositioning, I think he might've peaked at the DNC. He's rapidly running out of legs to stand on. Then again, the good stuff is just getting started. My popcorn is ready! This is what politics is all about. Fun ain't it!

You picked my brain and spilled my thoughts on here! I completely agree. Not to mention he is a very liberal candidate...unlike the moderate liberals. Looks like a divided party to me, and divided democrats have never won elections throughtout history.

I must make an Honorable mention Mec here.. Bush seems to be loosing ground in some of the Southeastern states.. such as Virginia, North Carolina.. and.. Ohia.. So I'll just pop your bubble here a bit.. as for New Jersey, yes it is true Kerry has lost ground there.. not the strong Blue.. but he still has the lead there non-theless..

but let me pop ur cherry first.

The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site.

quote:

A new Survey USA poll ending Sept. 8 in Ohio, shows the race tightening there. Bush's 9% lead is now down to 3% there. He is now leading 50% to 47%. Bush's lead is also dropping in North Carolina (now 4%) and Virginia (now only 3%). Maybe the South will rise again (for Kerry, this time). At the very least, if Bush has to fight for some of the southern states, that will divert time and money from the Midwest. One piece of good news for Bush comes from an unlikely state: New Jersey. Kerry's lead in New Jersey is falling precipitously. It is down to 4% now, 43% to 39%, with Nader at 5%. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Nader will really get 5% there, or anywhere.

Source.. www.electoral-vote.com..

Also, is somewhat important to mention that Kerry has a whopping lead in New Mexico, compared to Al Gore and Bush in 2000, and Nevada is currently tied .. compared to the 4 point lead Bush had there when he WON that state.. Also Coloardo, which has shifted to weak Kerry, compared to the almost whopping 10 point lead Bush had there in 2000, and in PA, Bush has a 1 point lead, virtually tied.. So I dont know where all the Euphoria and coughings for Kerry comments come from.. I could go on with Many states that BUSH should have had assured.. non-theless.. this election looks very rigid still, and as for the RNC effects, they are quickly fading away.

AS for Oregon, the latest poll Zogby & Riley has Kerry with a 5 point lead there .. as for sept.3.

Blank paper for the printer = 15 cents

Microsoft Word 2000 = $250

Computer and printer = $1000

Watching Dan Rather apololgize on national TV = Priceless


Oh, and CBS just keeps getting more and more owned on this..

quote:

CBS has defended the authenticity of the Guard memos, which were supposedly produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. But one of Killian's fellow officers, an independent document examiner and Killian's own son doubted the veracity of the memos. Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review. "It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that." The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake. "They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984. In a telephone interview from her Texas home, Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records to The Washington Post as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and that he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot." "I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS journalists, who she said did not ask her to authenticate the records.

Some places are reporting leaks from within CBS say that they had doubts about the documents but ran the story anyway.

But then again, those are "leaked" documents too.

Which leak to believe? Either? Both? Neither?

I am also hearing now that Dan Rathers Daughter is a BIG DEM fund raiser in TX with that Ben guy and that Dan Rather actually went down to a fundraiser down there to be the key speaker.

I heard that on the radio today. I am sure there will be news stories about later on.

Rather is toast. He should just resign now

here are the files

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf

I commend ABC news on their efforts to refute CBS
I also think ABC is happy to lay a little "bitch slapping" on CBS and Dan Rather

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I must make an Honorable mention Mec here.. Bush seems to be loosing ground in some of the Southeastern states.. such as Virginia, North Carolina.. and.. Ohia.. So I'll just pop your bubble here a bit.. as for New Jersey, yes it is true Kerry has lost ground there.. not the strong Blue.. but he still has the lead there non-theless.. but let me pop ur cherry first. The tie in Colorado has been broken. Kerry is now ahead there (by 1%) for the first time, but it doesn't mean anything since it is well within the MoE. Still Colorado appears to be in play. It would be ironic if Kerry won Colorado and only got 5 votes in the electoral college due to the referendum the Democrats pushed. If you haven't followed the referendum story, type: referendum in the Google search box at the bottom of the page. This box can be used to search all pages on the site. Source.. www.electoral-vote.com.. Also, is somewhat important to mention that Kerry has a whopping lead in New Mexico, compared to Al Gore and Bush in 2000, and Nevada is currently tied .. compared to the 4 point lead Bush had there when he WON that state.. Also Coloardo, which has shifted to weak Kerry, compared to the almost whopping 10 point lead Bush had there in 2000, and in PA, Bush has a 1 point lead, virtually tied.. So I dont know where all the Euphoria and coughings for Kerry comments come from.. I could go on with Many states that BUSH should have had assured.. non-theless.. this election looks very rigid still, and as for the RNC effects, they are quickly fading away. AS for Oregon, the latest poll Zogby & Riley has Kerry with a 5 point lead there .. as for sept.3.

This upcoming week should be interesting.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

bush only has a 4% lead in the great state of north carolina. i wanna be a battleground state, too.

i've been watching this site for a while, and bush seems to have lost his convention steam rather quickly. maybe he needs a quick boost from something else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/


damn speedracer, i wish you would study bush with the same ferver you study his opposition. beware, it's a mind-fuck. take your time, and one day you'll be ready.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec

Fantastic!

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag http://www.electoral-vote.com/ bush only has a 4% lead in the great state of north carolina. i wanna be a battleground state, too. i've been watching this site for a while, and bush seems to have lost his convention steam rather quickly. maybe he needs a quick boost from something else. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4779686/ damn speedracer, i wish you would study bush with the same ferver you study his opposition. beware, it's a mind-fuck. take your time, and one day you'll be ready.

LoL.. "House Of Bush, House of Saud" .. he might as well get that book too, study it, and then.. bring back the comments, Id LOOOOVEEE to listen to the comments and refutal evidences..

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Blank paper for the printer = 15 cents Microsoft Word 2000 = $250 Computer and printer = $1000 Watching Dan Rather apololgize on national TV = Priceless Oh, and CBS just keeps getting more and more owned on this.. Some places are reporting leaks from within CBS say that they had doubts about the documents but ran the story anyway. But then again, those are "leaked" documents too. Which leak to believe? Either? Both? Neither? I am also hearing now that Dan Rathers Daughter is a BIG DEM fund raiser in TX with that Ben guy and that Dan Rather actually went down to a fundraiser down there to be the key speaker. I heard that on the radio today. I am sure there will be news stories about later on. Rather is toast. He should just resign now here are the files http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...ush_service.pdf I commend ABC news on their efforts to refute CBS I also think ABC is happy to lay a little "bitch slapping" on CBS and Dan Rather

It's not like Kerry ever made this part of his politics..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX It's not like Kerry ever made this part of his politics..

The Bush bots want you to believe that he did!

Ooohh Mec!! CRAAAP!!! It looks like the plates and tables are turning around!! OMFG! How could that be!! I thought Kerry's Campaign was down the throat and hole!! heh..

quote:

Five new polls today, two of them significant. Kerry has moved back into the lead in Pennsylvania albeit by less than the MoE so it doesn't mean a lot. The Survey USA poll gives Kerry 49% to Bush's 47%. Picking up Pennsylvania also gives him the 270 votes in the electoral college needed to win. The other significant poll is in Missouri, where Survey USA puts Bush ahead 48% to 46%. Thursday we had Bush up by 14% according to a Gallup poll. I didn't believe that then and I still don't. Gallup clearly messed up, like Time and Newsweek last week. Before believing a strange results, check the state graphs to see if it fits in. Barring major news, jumps of 10% in a week are just not going to happen in this race. Bush has maintained his huge leads in Indiana, Kansas, and Kentucky. Consequently, neither candidate will set foot in any of these states. was afraid this was going to happen sooner or later and it has now happened. I have to make a judgement call on a firm that engages in push polling. In case you haven't followed this issue, push polling is where the pollster (on instructions from the client) asks a very slanted question in order to elicit the desired answer so the pollster can announce how well the client is doing. Questions like "Do you support John Kerry even though he lied about getting medals in Vietnam?" or "Do you support George Bush even though he deserted the National Guard during war time?" fall in this category. Legitimate pollsters would never ask such questions. Instead they might ask "Do you believe John Kerry earned his medals in Vietnam?" or "Do you believe George Bush fulfilled his duties in the National Guard?". Those are questions designed to determine public opinion, not create it. Why does this come up now? Moore Information (R) just released a poll showing Bush 9% ahead in Iowa, a state he has never led in before and which the current poll (taken 5 days before Moore's poll) puts Bush 4% behind. On its own merits, this is implausible, but in the absence of other evidence, I would accept it, as I accepted Gallup's poll showing Bush 14% ahead in Missouri (even though I don't believe it for a second) due to Gallup's reputation. Even Gallup can make a mistake, but they are not dishonest. With Moore Information, the situation is different. Moore was recently caught doing push polling, as reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It is ok for a pollster to work for one side or the other as long as they do honest polls (Scott Rasmussen is a Republican but I have no reason to question his numbers, for example). But Moore has crossed the line and got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. I asked the president of Moore Information for his side of the story but he didn't respond. Henceforth I will not use any Moore Information polls. If anyone has documented evidence of other pollsters doing push polls, please let me know. In Rasmussen's 3-day rolling averages, Bush currently leads Kerry by 1.6% nationally, but trails him by 2.5% in the 16 battleground states. Ultimately, the latter number may be more important than the former because rolling up a massive victory in the South and West may be slim consolation for losing the Midwest by 2%. Rasmussen also reports that in the battleground states only 39% think the country is on the right track, vs. 56% who think it is on the wrong track. Numbers like these are never good for an incumbent. For those of you curious about the minor parties, I now have some real data. Zogby's Sept. 8-9 survey gives the following results: Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 2.4%, Badnarik 0.9%, Peroutka 0.3%, Other 0.6%, Undecided 8%. In a two-man matchup, Bush leads Kerry by 2%. I just learned that Zogby is the house pollster for the New York Post, an extreme right-wing tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. Having the Post and the WSJ as clients doesn't attest to Zogby's accuracy but it does attest to his not being biased in favor of Kerry. Zogby is also the pollster for Reuters, the largest news agency in the world.

www.electoral-vote.com

Looks Like Kerry is getting back in the lead.. Aaah Crap how could that happen!! Bush was leading a stunning 10 point digit number just days ago!!



As you can read through, Rasmussen is a based republican, alongside with the more prestigious as Zogby.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Ooohh Mec!! CRAAAP!!! It looks like the plates and tables are turning around!! OMFG! How could that be!! I thought Kerry's Campaign was down the throat and hole!! heh.. www.electoral-college.com Looks Like Kerry is getting back in the lead.. Aaah Crap how could that happen!! Bush was leading a stunning 10 point digit number just days ago!! As you can read through, Rasmussen is a based republican, alongside with the more prestigious as Zogby.

I love that the writer calls the Post "Extreme Right-Wing". A bit of an extreme comment I'd say. It's certainly to the right, but I don't know if it's quite "Extreme" enough for that description. It's no more extreme right than the New York Times is "Extreme Left". Criticises the WSJ too--that's a hoot. But alas, I digress.

First off, whatever you just quoted certainly didn't sound like a credible news source. Half of the whole article just sounded like a massive brain fart of a word jumble. But that aside, when I clicked on the linke you provided, I got whisked away to Here

Anybody else see this when they clicked the link?



Anyway, who cares. Polls are nothing more than polls. Don't go planning your life around them. As the old adage goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Another funny quote: "The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they are okay, then it's you. "

HeH.. yea, I edited, it's electoral-vote.com .. I got too much of the electoral college running around my head heh.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX HeH.. yea, I edited, it's electoral-vote.com .. I got too much of the electoral college running around my head heh.

We all do buddy.

Don't believe the polls, they are rarely that accurate.

I'd say a more appropriate time to check out the polls would be after these dates

Debate 1:
University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, on September. 30, 2004.

Debate 2:
October 8th debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri,

Debate: 3
Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, on October 13th.

I think head to head matchups will really bring out the issues and give Americans a more clear idea on who the candidates really are.

Well, according to electoral-vote.com, the polls shifted back to Kerry in 2 days.

just want everyone to know that Montana's 3 Electoral votes are never in doubt...the 26 voters and 3 million sheep and cows stand firm in their decisions.

I'm replying to you because, well, because I missed the hell outa ya! So here's my angry liberal reply bub!:

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka D'oh! Nice change of topic, Opus!

I changed the topic?

I thought I was just talkin' about one of the few topics given by that article - the polls?

Was I wrong to do so?

quote:

I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end!

True, in fact it almost seems like a certain degree of luck is required in the end.

quote:

Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign.

True, though I tend to think that past history is open season on any candidate, regardless of whether or not they make it a part of their campaign. It doesn't help much with the desire to focus on present day issues, but that's politics for ya.

quote:

Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face.

I dunno, I tend to see it a little different (I know, a real shocker from a partisan liberal ). I agree (yet again) that he overplayed his Vietnam record on the campaign trail after the Dem. Convention, but for things to blow up in his face on a factual level there has to be substantive evidence that he was lying about his record.

We know now that the group charging all that crud against his record has been riddled with a slew of inconsistencies and contradictions in their own account as well as Naval record and actual eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions.

Of course in the long run, it's not so much the factual evidence (or lack thereof) that sticks in the minds of undecided voters. Like I've said before, the Conservatives have the political mudslinging down to an art. Throw enough mud and see just how much will stick.

The Dems. are playing catch up in this regard.

quote:

If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better.

Well see, I think he has quite a record to run on here. By that logic we would have to examine Cheney's record in the House and see just how effective he was. How many bills did he contribute to that passed? 4 was it? Vs. how many Kerry took part in?

Ahh hell, there were other affairs to be sure - Iran/Contra, BCCI, normalizing relations with McCain with Vietnam, supporting numerous defense bills post 1997 (prior to that many in Congress, including Cheney, as well as Bush I were interested in cutting defense for fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction), etc. etc.

It's incredibly easy to take apart a Senator or Representative's voting record and twist it upside-down and backwards on itself. As an example, take a look at how Bush and the Conservatives (oh yeah, Zell Miller too) twisted Kerry's vote on the $87 billion package for Iraq, which Occ did a splendid job outlining just how easy it was to twist around:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...87&pagenumber=4

So we have 2 bills here, and Kerry was trying to be fiscally responsible with how to spend the money. Bush used that against him, even though he threatened to veto the first bill because it didn't suit him. And this was the same guy who said that supporting our troops isn't complicated?

Twisting his Senatorial voting history is wonderful fodder for the Conservatives. It works too, unfortunately, because much of the public doesn't realize just how many stipulations and additions/subtractions go into 1 Bill trying to be passed. Nevertheless, I anticipate the Conservatives attempting to go after this regardless in the coming weeks.

I think, however, that the Conservatives need to be careful attacking Kerry's record on Defense. And here's why:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19832/

Hypocracy anyone?

quote:

I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there.

Now Shakka, if you've read Kerry's transcript, you'd realize that Kerry wasn't referring to his troops committing atrocities, nor did he himself state that he committed atrocities. Rather, he was reporting what other soldiers had told him from a previous event in Detroit:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244

He did participate in free fire zones, however, which he later stated that he found out that those were against the Geneva Conventions. His anger was NOT towards the troops, but from the Pentagon and our incorrect government policy that was passed down onto the troops.

And I hope you're not stating that atrocities in general weren't taking place. The My Lai massacres were well known prior to Kerry's testimony, thanks to one of the Conservatives' favorite authors, Seymor Hersh, and other massacres such as the Tiger Force and Son Thang were exposed afterwards (not by Hersh, mind you).

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244

quote:

Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum.

Are you sure you're not talking about your own party's leader? Isn't is true that Bush received the smallest gallop "bounce" in history AFTER the Repub. convention? And that huge 11 pt. Newsweek "bounce", why did it fall back down to 6 points IN ONE WEEK?:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5971162/site/newsweek/

How can an incumbent president who's so strong in the polls lose 5 points so quickly? That's staggering to me.

But I'm like you, nothing's interesting about these stupid polls until the final weeks. So I won't pay too much attention to them until then if you won't either.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But I'm like you, nothing's interesting about these stupid polls until the final weeks. So I won't pay too much attention to them until then if you won't either.

I wouldn't have it any other way!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.