The W
Views: 97702457
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.7.14 0821
The W - Current Events & Politics - In spite of himself
This thread has 10 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.89
Pages: 1
(1096 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.25
Just an observation. Kerry has run an abysmal campaign and should be heading to a McGovernlike crash and burn. Yet, in spite of himself, Kerry is still in it and if the latest polls are accurate, "W"'s lead is shrinking. IMO, Kerry's politics are too left of where America sees itself, yet he's in it. The Swifties have really tred to damage his credibility. IMO, he is the weakest Democrat candidiate outside of Dukakis over the last 76 years. Why do you all think he's hasn't crashed and burned yet?



Perception is reality
Promote this thread!
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 659 days
Last activity: 659 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
I believe it's because a great deal of his support isn't in favor of him insomuch as it is against Bush. No matter what Kerry did/said/stood for, the anti-Bush vote would still "support" him.

I know there were some polls/studies about this a while ago, and I think they're still accurate. But I'm sure someone else, more politically hende, will be able to dig that kind of thing up.



I'm ScreamingHeadGuy, and I approve this post.

OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Just an observation. Kerry has run an abysmal campaign and should be heading to a McGovernlike crash and burn. Yet, in spite of himself, Kerry is still in it and if the latest polls are accurate, "W"'s lead is shrinking. IMO, Kerry's politics are too left of where America sees itself, yet he's in it. The Swifties have really tred to damage his credibility. IMO, he is the weakest Democrat candidiate outside of Dukakis over the last 76 years. Why do you all think he's hasn't crashed and burned yet?


I've been pondering the exact opposite question - Bush's first term has been abysmal. His election is suspect, he spents an inordinate amount of time on vacation and he presides over the greatest security failure in American history. The economy flounders, he fails to capture Osama Bin Laden and focuses the national energy on a war in Iraq, trumped up on false evidence with no exit strategy leading to chaos. His politics, and especially those of some members of his administration, are to the right of where America honestly sees itself. IMO, he is the worst American President of since Wilson. Why hasn't he crashed and burned yet?


I think the answer to each question is contained in the other.



Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    "W"'s lead is shrinking.
Dirt, usually you're reasoned, but that statement is patently inaccruate
    Originally posted by Susan Page, USA Today
    President Bush has surged to a 13-point lead over Sen. John Kerry among likely voters, a new Gallup Poll shows. The 55%-42% match-up is the first statistically significant edge either candidate has held this year.

    Among registered voters, Bush is ahead 52%-44%.

    The boost Bush received from the Republican convention has increased rather than dissipated, reshaping a race that for months has been nearly tied. Kerry is facing warnings from Democrats that his campaign is seriously off-track.

    With 46 days until the election, analysts say the proposed presidential debates offer Kerry his best chance to change the race.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Why do you all think he's hasn't crashed and burned yet?
He is...

    Originally posted by BaghdadBob....er OFB
    he spents an inordinate amount of time on vacation
Like Clinton did?

    Originally posted by BaghdadBob....er OFB
    and he presides over the greatest security failure in American history.
You people never cease to amaze me. Clinton presides over multiple terrorist attacks, does nothing, and it's Bush's fault. Hell, this is half the reason that the people are going to beat up on Kerry; a large percentage of the hardcore Democrat supporters are delusional.

    Originally posted by BaghdadBob....er OFB
    His politics, and especially those of some members of his administration, are to the right of where America honestly sees itself.
I didn't know that you thought America saw itslef as communist. Bush's presidency has been less conservative than Clinton's in some respect. It scares me to think where YOU want America to be...

(edited by Grimis on 17.9.04 0956)


You know, if John Kerry weren't so darn electable, the Democrats would be panicking right now. Oh wait, he isn't and they are.
- James Taranto
OMEGA
Lap cheong








Since: 18.6.02
From: North Cacalacky

Since last post: 1852 days
Last activity: 1820 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.21
The latest Harris poll shows Kerry with a one-point lead over Bush. I'm not sure how impactful the Harris polls are, but it's something.



The answer to WWE's financial problems...

Never 'Wiener of the Day', and is actually quite bitter about it.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3468 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.47
No offense, but I am going to go out on a limb and say all the polls tell us nothing. As my teacher, once said, all data is crap. There are 100 different polls out there saying Bush by landslide, Kerry by 1, Bush by 2 and Kerry by 5. For once, I would like to have an election decided by the people and not some polls and a media jamming it down our throats like its the gospel according to John. The only thing I can honestly say about this election, is that the debates will play a factor and we may never know until election day who are President will be.

On a side note, you would think after 2000, people would realize that the popular vote means nothing and until are real study is down with all 50 states and over 1000 participants in each state, I'd stop using polls to validate any argument about who is going to win.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by A Fan
    On a side note, you would think after 2000, people would realize that the popular vote means nothing and until are real study is down with all 50 states and over 1000 participants in each state, I'd stop using polls to validate any argument about who is going to win.
The first part of your statement is correct.

The second part of your statement is not, as we have noted here multiple times.



A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3468 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.47
which part, the one that actually requires thought and research to get done. I know that might be a bit hard for you since you are just about cut and paste and had nothing to the arguments here.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
The popular vote means nothing.

Your polling assertion is statistically riduculous.

Kerry getting beaten this bad must be really getting to you.



Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
    Originally posted by A Fan
    which part, the one that actually requires thought and research to get done. I know that might be a bit hard for you since you are just about cut and paste and had nothing to the arguments here.


You are on dangerous ground here.

First of all, your assertion actually IS incorrect. A study of statistics would show you that you are asking for a sample that is too large. A good sample actually can predict the outcome of an event with a much smaller sample size than 1000 people. Simply stating that it should be larger doesn't make that a fact - it makes you wrong.

Please stop attacking the other users. I'm sorry that you don't feel that Grimis brings anything original to the conversation besides cut and paste. While he is quite proilific in his posting here, he is not merely a parrot. I don't agree with him all of the time, but I believe he does attempt to back up his points with reason most of the time, and we call him on it when he doesn't.

By contrast, this is the second post of yours today that I've read with concern. It has nothing to do with your political leanings, but in your method.

(edited by Guru Zim on 17.9.04 1307)


Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Malarky
Bauerwurst








Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3577 days
Last activity: 3574 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.18
To be honest polls are IMHO useless when there is still 7 weeks or so to election day.

Yes, Kerry is a weak (ie; no charisma, wooden campaigner, big liberal) candidate, but W is also a weak incumbent, weighted down by many issues where he has been less than successful such as the economy, Iraq, the WoT, and domestic issues such as spiralling healthcare costs.

It'll be a close election, a few points seperating them at most on the night of Nov 2nd, and don't forget that historically undecideds break for the challenger over the incumbent.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.25
    Originally posted by Malarky
    To be honest polls are IMHO useless when there is still 7 weeks or so to election day.


IMHO, accurate polling is invaluable to the candidates. It is a very valuable tool for determining what to do and where to commit your resources.



Perception is reality
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 390 days
Last activity: 390 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.27
The only possible use for the national poll is Bush being over 50%, and it is almost impossible for an incumbent President to get beat from that position. Outside of that, it's a national poll in a federal election.
Now, onto Kerry. His main problem is he has somehow combined the Dean playbook of the Democratic primaries '04 with the Republican playbook used against Clinton in '96. When the sole focus of the campaign is anger, it doesn't work. While negative advertising has been/is/will always be a key asset to a campaign, a negative campaign doesn't work. It blew up in the Republicans face when they attempted that style of campaign in '96, leading to an electoral romp for Clinton after he had appeared vulnerable from the Republican taking of the House and Senate in '94. Even worse, Dean couldn't win the Democratic nomination using that style. If that style couldn't even work amongst Democratic primary voters, what was the Kerry campaign thinking when they decided to make Bush is Bad the central focus of the campaign? And while I'm waiting for the Kerry backers to harken back to his rising from the dead in Iowa, there is one huge difference. Bush won't implode. Dean was going to implode, and the only question was whether the implosion would come during the primaries or during the general election.
The person who might benefit the most from Kerry's ineptitude is Edwards. He'll get time on the national stage, while the taint of defeat will be solely upon Kerry's ineptitude.



The Public Demands: Bring Back The Kaiser.
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni








Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 848 days
Last activity: 818 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.17
I'm to the point now where I'm burnt out by the polls, only because the results are so fluctating between polls and pollsters alike.

Kerry's either ahead by a bit, or as Gallup has, Bush is up by 12%.

My feeling? Bush is up by 4%; and we'll see what happens when the debates come around.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.07
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by BaghdadBob....er OFB


Come on, that's totally unnecessary. ESPECIALLY when you say it THREE times in the same message.

(edited by CRZ on 17.9.04 2337)

CRZ
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 659 days
Last activity: 659 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
Ha - I found it

Many self-identified Kerry supporters, on the other hand, expressed ambivalence about their candidate. In Missouri, for instance, one out of every four Kerry supporters said they were voting for him only because they disliked the other candidates, while 39 percent said theyd vote for Kerry because they like him.

And in Ohio, 31 percent of Kerry supporters said they would vote for him because they disliked the other candidates; 43 percent of Kerry supporters said they were voting for him because they like him.




I'm ScreamingHeadGuy, and I approve this post.

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.24
    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    Ha - I found it

    Many self-identified Kerry supporters, on the other hand, expressed ambivalence about their candidate. In Missouri, for instance, one out of every four Kerry supporters said they were voting for him only because they disliked the other candidates, while 39 percent said theyd vote for Kerry because they like him.

    And in Ohio, 31 percent of Kerry supporters said they would vote for him because they disliked the other candidates; 43 percent of Kerry supporters said they were voting for him because they like him.



I watched NOW with Bill Moyers last night and Kathleen Hall Jameson, who studies such thing, said that this election one of the problems is basically what you quote above. She also pointed out that the voting public has the overall feeling of "Is that the best my party has to offer?" This is apparently true for both major parties.



Perception is reality
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
Good job SHG in finding the information you were looking for. But aren't those numbers just a little bit confusing? For example:
    Originally posted by Tom Curry, National affairs writer, MSNBC
    In Ohio, 31 percent of Kerry supporters said they would vote for him because they disliked the other candidates; 43 percent of Kerry supporters said they were voting for him because they like him.
Thirty one percent plus forty three percent equals seventy four percent; that means that twenty six percent of Kerry's supporters in Ohio neither dislike the other candidates nor like Kerry. Is that possible? The numbers for Missouri hold a similar incongruity, as they indicate that approximately one-third of Kerry's supporters neither like Kerry nor dislike the other candidates. Am I missing something here? I mean, what other reasons are there for voting for a candidate other than a) I like him/her; or b) I dislike all the other candidates more? Perhaps as a dare? Because the coin they were tossing came up heads? Maybe they received a bribe?

Anyway, all kidding aside, your point SHG is well taken, and I again congratulate you on finding the data you were looking for on the net to back it up. Good job!




Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Well, if they said "I'm voting for because I am a " that is neither liking nor disliking. I assume some people said that they were voting Kerry just because he was the Democrat in the race. That may be your missing percentage.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Well, if they said "I'm voting for (x) because I am a (y)" that is neither liking nor disliking. I assume some people said that they were voting Kerry just because he was the Democrat in the race. That may be your missing percentage.
Well, that certainly makes sense Guru. I mean "makes sense" as far as getting the percentages to add up; IMHO it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to cast a vote for a candidate simply because they have a certain party symbol after their name, be it an "R" or a "D" or whatever. Because when you do that, you run the risk of voting for someone like this guy (jameshartforcongress.com)(as featured in this thread (The W)).

(edited by Downtown Bookie on 19.9.04 0403)


Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Thread rated: 5.89
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: "Iraq War Illegal" says Annan
Next thread: Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liars
Previous thread: Iraq getting worse
(1096 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Hey we had to have some place to base the trops for the Iraq war....NOW we can turn the guns around and take out the House of Saud.
The W - Current Events & Politics - In spite of himselfRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.138 seconds.