Kerry Meltdown 2004

[SDW2001]

Kerry's campaign has gone from maintaining a nice cruising speed, to losing altitude, to a tailspin, to a full fledged both engines burning screaming down to earth.

Some links:

Ramussen has Bush within FIVE in NY. Gore won by 25.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20York_Fall%202004.htm

Bush is now up in every major poll. CBS by 9. Gallup by 14. Others by a few. But, the significance is the trend. Bush was down by about 7 in many polls after Kerry's convention. That's between a 10-21 point turnaround. Take a look

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Now we hear that Kerry is going to focus on Iraq for the remainder of the campaign. This is monumentally stupid. Oh, don't get me wrong...another candidate might have a field fay with this angle. Clinton would have roasted Bush politically on the Iraq topic. But not Kerry. Kerry's positions on Iraq are absolutely inexplicabale...no matter where you stand. He continues to fall back on the distinction that he voted to authorize the use of force, not actually use it. That's way too fine a distinction in a national election to be effective. Kerry's focusing on Iraq is incredibly dumb. Kerry's never ending attacks in Bush are also incredibly dumb. To win, he MUST focus on what HE will do DIFFERENTLY. He should end ALL negative advertising. Now.

Even as a Bush supporter, I never expected Kerry's numbers to be so bad (and worse for him, Bush's numbers keep going up). Shit, NY is almost within the margin of error. NJ is barely outside of it. In PA, Bush is up. The real story though, is the internal numbers on perceptions such as "strong leader" "honesty", etc. Bush's job approval has simultaneously gone up to over 50%. No incumbent has EVER lost with that rating at this time in the cycle.

Kerry's wife is also a major liability. In addition to the "shove it" comment, she said that "only an idiot" wouldn't support her husband's healthcare plan. That's just insulting to the average voter, I would think. He needs to keep her under wraps, if it's not too late already.

I agree it's only September, but it's looking very bad for Kerry. What would you be doing differently if you were him? Or, do you think things are going fine for him and that the polling is bullshit? Somewhere in the middle?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush's job approval has simultaneously gone up to over 50%. No incumbent has EVER lost with that rating at this time in the cycle.
Polls. Polls and more polls. The latest exaggerated polls may not be making Kerry happy, but please go ahead and believe Bush is up by 12 or 13 points. Here's another poll for you....don't mean to burst your bubble.
President Bush’s Ratings Slip to Lowest Level of His Presidency, According to Latest Harris Poll


ROCHESTER, N.Y. – September 17, 2004 – President Bush’s ratings have slipped to 45 percent positive and 54 percent negative, the lowest ratings of his presidency, according to a new Harris Poll. These numbers compare to 50 percent positive, 49 percent negative in June and 48 percent positive, 51 percent negative in August. This downward trend no doubt helps to explain why the lead which the president enjoyed over Senator Kerry immediately after the Republican convention in New York – the so-called “convention bounce” – has now disappeared.

Still a ways to go. Link. (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=496)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Polls. Polls and more polls. The latest exaggerated polls may not be making Kerry happy, but please go ahead and believe Bush is up by 12 or 13 points. Here's another poll for you....don't mean to burst your bubble.


Still a ways to go.

Go ahead. Talk about denial. That poll is out of line with all the others. Gallup was at least sided by Time and Newsweek.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead. Talk about denial. That poll is out of line with all the others. Gallup was at least sided by Time and Newsweek. A Bush freak is telling me I'm in denial. Priceless. There's other polls that show a much closer race, but choose the ones that make your eyes water when you see Bush on TV if you like.

Funny how Time and Newsweek are good for you now. I'm sure you've never bitched about them being "liberal rags".

[Scott]

The debates are coming!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Polls. Polls and more polls. The latest exaggerated polls may not be making Kerry happy, but please go ahead and believe Bush is up by 12 or 13 points. Here's another poll for you....don't mean to burst your bubble.


Still a ways to go. Link. (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=496)

I don't believe Bush is up by 12 or 13 points. I've made clear that my prediction is 49-46 on election day. But I will say this about your Harris poll with regards to being highly questionable, it is the only poll I have seen anywhere, regardless of trending Republican or Democratic that shows a +10% bounce for Kerry in his convention month and a 0% bounce for Bush in his convention month. That to be goes well beyond leaning or even beyond the occasional oddball outlier. It goes straight into the very questionable catagory for me.

But to each his own...

Nick

[Existence]

Just think of it -- Kerry was once considered more electable than Dean. It is now becoming obvious that notion was absurd. Kerry has turned out more boring than Al Bore's 2004 campaign, pandering to the right at every opportunity.

www.votecobb.org

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't believe Bush is up by 12 or 13 points. I've made clear that my prediction is 49-46 on election day. But I will say this about your Harris poll with regards to being highly questionable, it is the only poll I have seen anywhere, regardless of trending Republican or Democratic that shows a +10% bounce for Kerry in his convention month and a 0% bounce for Bush in his convention month. That to be goes well beyond leaning or even beyond the occasional oddball outlier. It goes straight into the very questionable catagory for me.
But to each his own... Uhh, it's not my poll, but thanks. Second of all, it's not a who you gonna vote for poll. It's a poll about Bush's positive and negative ratings, and at 54% negative, it's not good news for him.

Either way, what I meant when I wrote "polls, poll and more polls", was that they don't mean much right now. Or with questionable methodology, ever at all. I posted that Harris poll just to prove there's different polls for different folks. Polls that in some cases tell vastly different stories. You can choose to believe whichever ones you want to believe. I believe none.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Existence
Just think of it -- Kerry was once considered more electable than Dean. It is now becoming obvious that notion was absurd. Kerry has turned out more boring than Al Bore's 2004 campaign, pandering to the right at every opportunity.
So you vote for whoever seems more entertaining to you? By the way, what happened? Weren't you a Nader freak? Not entertaining enough?
:lol:

[faust9]

I believe them all (http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif). You just have to balance the highs with the lows to get a good picture.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by faust9
I believe them all (http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif). You just have to balance the highs with the lows to get a good picture. Well. Freewill. ;)

Fox has Bush at below 50%?? :wow: :D

[shetline]

Originally posted by faust9
I believe them all (http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif). You just have to balance the highs with the lows to get a good picture.
The sad thing is that if Bush's approval is dipping so low, yet in the Bush/Kerry contest Bush is edging ahead at the same time, it would seem to say that the Bush campaign is successfully getting away with their sleazy campaign against Kerry.

Yes, I could hope for Kerry to be a more effective campaigner that he's been, but the Republicans have created a smear machine which would be hard for anyone to fight. It very effectively bypasses critical thought and plays well to many people's basest instincts and easily-exploited errors of reasoning.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by shetline
Yes, I could hope for Kerry to be a more effective campaigner that he's been, but the Republicans have created a smear machine which would be hard for anyone to fight. It very effectively bypasses critical thought and plays well to many people's basest instincts and easily-exploited errors of reasoning.

At the risk of Naples calling me a "sad" man, I would like to say that I share the sentiment.

And they talk about the Democrats going negative first by using the president's record against him...my lord...fielding the candidate in an election year...what's the world coming to?

[Scott]

Originally posted by Existence
Just think of it -- Kerry was once considered more electable than Dean. It is now becoming obvious that notion was absurd. Kerry has turned out more boring than Al Bore's 2004 campaign, pandering to the right at every opportunity.

www.votecobb.org

Not at all. Kerry is still more electable than Dean.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by shetline
the Bush campaign is successfully getting away with their sleazy campaign against Kerry.

Yes, I could hope for Kerry to be a more effective campaigner that he's been, but the Republicans have created a smear machine which would be hard for anyone to fight. It very effectively bypasses critical thought and plays well to many people's basest instincts and easily-exploited errors of reasoning.

Uhh the last time I checked Kerry is his own greatest liability.

Have you heard him in "his own words"? It is interesting to hear him say one thing in one interview for a given audience in the context of let's say the primaries and then in another context in front of a different audience in another interview he completely flip flops his position or stance on a subject.

This is the weakness in this candidate John Kerry.

Democrats out there in the country can blame Bush for Kerry's mistakes and blunders all they want but the truth stands that Kerry is his own enemy in this election period.

He lost the election for himself.

Shetline you and some of the others really are going to have to learn not to blame Bush for every single thing under the sun.

I mean really. We are talking about John Kerry here.

You want to blame Bush because Kerry is falling so far behind in this election?

Get Real.

Fellowship

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's amazing how much you absorb the language of others here. I *just* said that quote about you in another thread, and now you're using it yourself. And you've co-opted "clearly" and "obviously" to describe basically anything you want-- regardless of whether it's clear or obvious. This is half-observation and half critique. I just think it would be good to find more original ways to express ourselves.

You have an unnatural obsession with me.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by Fellowship
This is the weekness in this candidate John Kerry.
Kerry's done a bit of pandering and message switching... I'll admit that. But not anywhere near as much as the Noise Machine blows it up to be, or distorts and outright lies to make it out to be. Kerry's flaws pale in comparison to Bush's, whose "just plain talk" facade covers up more deceit than Kerry has ever been guilty of.
You want to blame Bush because Kerry is falling so far behind in this election?

Get Real.
The above question of yours is a perfect example of the overly simplistic thinking the Bush campaign is so well designed to exploit.

You try to boil it all down to two black and white possibilities: I either "get real" and blame all of Kerry's problems on Kerry, or I must be blaming all of Kerry's problems on Bush. No middle ground, no shades of gray.

Well, guess what? Real life is more complicated than that. But Bush, and a scary proportion of the American public as well, don't want life to be that complicated, don't want their thinking to have to stir more than a couple of synapses at a time, and would rather swallow simplistic aphorisms and pig-headed inflexibility, praising those Bush "virtues" as "forthright".

For these same lazy thinkers, it's easier to laugh at Bush's "flip-flopper" jabs than to wrap their tiny minds around perfectly valid but subtle distinctions, such as granting the President the authority to go to war with Iraq, if necessary as a last resort, while not approving of how the President abused that authority, or approving funding for the war in one bill, but not approving for the funding in other bill -- because those bills were different, and because when the second bill came up the abuse of authority had become an issue, and because absurd tax cuts were still being granted to the rich so that the cost of this war could be passed on to future generations instead.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by shetline




I agree that more should be considered and debated in this election but we can forget that. This is America with a two party system. Time and energy by the candidates is spent creating image and not to inform the public.

Do you really feel we live in a democracy?

You don't have to explain to me about black and white I am very informed of this concept.

The sad truth is that we will never be serious with politics in this county any time soon. The powers that be have sugar-coated everything in bite-size pieces.

Fellows

[sammi jo]

most of the post went missing in the posting process...grrr

[sammi jo]

Kerry is running a pathetic campaign. Karl Rove and the Bush team are running rings round Kerry, with room to spare. I don't think Kerry would be a bad president, but you gotta admire Rove's genius...the man is brilliant.

I can't see anything changing, unless some monstrous, bigger-than-Watergate scandal erupts between now and the election. There is one lurking in the wings, but November 2004 is too soon by far...... Perhaps by 2006 at the earliest.....

I predict a Bush-Cheney win by some 5% overall, and possibly a larger margin in areas where touchscreen voting machines predominate.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Fellows.

I don't know if that really replies to Shetline's post. He said your thinking was "black and white." You seem to have no response to that beyond considering yourself "very informed of the concept." Well, I believe you-- you must be very, um, familiar with it-- you sure think in those terms enough. I'm personally interested in whether you still see Sen. Kerry's candidacy in those mutually exclusive terms. Is it still his fault-- period-- or do other forces help shape his campaign?

Shawn there are all kinds of factors. I think as shetline and others blame Bush for everything this is the lazy man's way of setting up a mind picture. I am simply saying to shetline that I believe Kerry is his own "largest" liability. Not the "only" contributing liability but in mho the largest liability.

Fellowship

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Kerry's done a bit of pandering and message switching... I'll admit that. But not anywhere near as much as the Noise Machine blows it up to be, or distorts and outright lies to make it out to be. Kerry's flaws pale in comparison to Bush's, whose "just plain talk" facade covers up more deceit than Kerry has ever been guilty of.

The above question of yours is a perfect example of the overly simplistic thinking the Bush campaign is so well designed to exploit.

You try to boil it all down to two black and white possibilities: I either "get real" and blame all of Kerry's problems on Kerry, or I must be blaming all of Kerry's problems on Bush. No middle ground, no shades of gray.

Well, guess what? Real life is more complicated than that. But Bush, and a scary proportion of the American public as well, don't want life to be that complicated, don't want their thinking to have to stir more than a couple of synapses at a time, and would rather swallow simplistic aphorisms and pig-headed inflexibility, praising those Bush "virtues" as "forthright".

For these same lazy thinkers, it's easier to laugh at Bush's "flip-flopper" jabs than to wrap their tiny minds around perfectly valid but subtle distinctions, such as granting the President the authority to go to war with Iraq, if necessary as a last resort, while not approving of how the President abused that authority, or approving funding for the war in one bill, but not approving for the funding in other bill -- because those bills were different, and because when the second bill came up the abuse of authority had become an issue, and because absurd tax cuts were still being granted to the rich so that the cost of this war could be passed on to future generations instead.

The laziest bunch of thinking I have seen easily comes from the Blame Bush crowd. Jobs down, well forget that whole stock bubble, terrorist attack thing, just blame Bush. 9/11? Blame Bush, forget the U.S.S. Cole, the 1993 attack, etc. oh and forget Clinton initiated the policy of regime change against Iraq and spent a great deal of time tossing missle at them, just Blame Bush. Etc..etc...

Kerry doesn't just pander and message switch. The deeper issue is that he simply pretends to be something he is not. Bush may make verbal flubs, but instead of denying it, he will play it up. Kerry shoots guns that he likely opposes, messes up the names of teams he supposedly watches or supports, can't figure out what cars he owns or drives, won't even mention his own Senate record, etc.

The real issue, even beneath the shades of gray is that Kerry doesn't want people to know who he is or what he has done. He denies doing certain things with VVAW that witnesses say he was there for and did. He bought the publishing rights back from the book he authored and keeps it hidden away. I've not seen Kerry mention a SINGLE thing he has done in the Senate, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Can Republicans take advantage of this? Sure. Do they? Absolutely.

Now ask yourself about that Noise machine and what it could focus on if Kerry would just admit who he is and what he does/did. How long would Kerry have to spend on say, tossing medals vs. ribbons if he just admitted that he was a very ardent war protester? But the point is he doesn't want to admit that.

Even if you take him as his face value being completely true, you still get someone who, at a minimum is very calculating and political to an insane degree. I mean things like I threw my ribbons, but not my medals? I'm a brave war here but also the only serving Swiftie who ever invoked the three and out rule for injuries that were basically scratches. I voted against the war that was a great definition of how Iraq should have been dealt with and contained, but then voted for the Iraq war that I consider a screw up, then voted against the funding, then said spend whatever it takes, then complained about the money being spent, then affirmed my vote, then called it the "wrong" war, etc..etc...

Meanwhile he won't mention anything about his Senate record, is running on a program of huge new spending plans, while still advocating most of the Bush tax cuts (which sounds again dishonest), while cutting the corporate tax rate (when many corporations already don't pay much in taxes), etc.

All that is Bush's fault? Kerry could come clean about who he is and what he wants to do with regard to leading the country any time he wants to do so. Words like universal helath care are easy to understand even if someone wants to distort some of the mechanisms that make it happen. But saying you are for something that sort of looks like universal health care, but don't call it that, and no not really universal, but I'm not going to tax you for it, or harm anyone, or ration it, or...whatever... that isn't shades of gray. That is hiding from what you represent. Kerry is hiding from who he is and what he want to do. If he would come clean, he probably could have a better chance, but he doesn't seem to think that would work.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Kerry's campaign has gone from maintaining a nice cruising speed, to losing altitude, to a tailspin, to a full fledged both engines burning screaming down to earth.

Some links:

Ramussen has Bush within FIVE in NY. Gore won by 25.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20York_Fall%202004.htm

Bush is now up in every major poll. CBS by 9. Gallup by 14. Others by a few. But, the significance is the trend. Bush was down by about 7 in many polls after Kerry's convention. That's between a 10-21 point turnaround. Take a look

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Now we hear that Kerry is going to focus on Iraq for the remainder of the campaign. This is monumentally stupid. Oh, don't get me wrong...another candidate might have a field fay with this angle. Clinton would have roasted Bush politically on the Iraq topic. But not Kerry. Kerry's positions on Iraq are absolutely inexplicabale...no matter where you stand. He continues to fall back on the distinction that he voted to authorize the use of force, not actually use it. That's way too fine a distinction in a national election to be effective. Kerry's focusing on Iraq is incredibly dumb. Kerry's never ending attacks in Bush are also incredibly dumb. To win, he MUST focus on what HE will do DIFFERENTLY. He should end ALL negative advertising. Now.

Even as a Bush supporter, I never expected Kerry's numbers to be so bad (and worse for him, Bush's numbers keep going up). Shit, NY is almost within the margin of error. NJ is barely outside of it. In PA, Bush is up. The real story though, is the internal numbers on perceptions such as "strong leader" "honesty", etc. Bush's job approval has simultaneously gone up to over 50%. No incumbent has EVER lost with that rating at this time in the cycle.

Kerry's wife is also a major liability. In addition to the "shove it" comment, she said that "only an idiot" wouldn't support her husband's healthcare plan. That's just insulting to the average voter, I would think. He needs to keep her under wraps, if it's not too late already.

I agree it's only September, but it's looking very bad for Kerry. What would you be doing differently if you were him? Or, do you think things are going fine for him and that the polling is bullshit? Somewhere in the middle?


Throw those bones and chicken entrails! I'm sure you'll come up with something interesting!:lol:


If it's not what you like it might be the SDW 2001 Meltdown!;)

[jimmac]

Like I said if Kerry asks the right questions he'll cut Bush to pieces. This isn't Al Gore.;)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/presidential.debates/index.html

I can't wait myself!

[SDW2001]

Ahhh...more nuance. If only the American people were smart enough to discern for themselves.

Same shit, different say I see.

Originally posted by shetline
Kerry's done a bit of pandering and message switching... I'll admit that. But not anywhere near as much as the Noise Machine blows it up to be, or distorts and outright lies to make it out to be. Kerry's flaws pale in comparison to Bush's, whose "just plain talk" facade covers up more deceit than Kerry has ever been guilty of.

The above question of yours is a perfect example of the overly simplistic thinking the Bush campaign is so well designed to exploit.

You try to boil it all down to two black and white possibilities: I either "get real" and blame all of Kerry's problems on Kerry, or I must be blaming all of Kerry's problems on Bush. No middle ground, no shades of gray.

Well, guess what? Real life is more complicated than that. But Bush, and a scary proportion of the American public as well, don't want life to be that complicated, don't want their thinking to have to stir more than a couple of synapses at a time, and would rather swallow simplistic aphorisms and pig-headed inflexibility, praising those Bush "virtues" as "forthright".

For these same lazy thinkers, it's easier to laugh at Bush's "flip-flopper" jabs than to wrap their tiny minds around perfectly valid but subtle distinctions, such as granting the President the authority to go to war with Iraq, if necessary as a last resort, while not approving of how the President abused that authority, or approving funding for the war in one bill, but not approving for the funding in other bill -- because those bills were different, and because when the second bill came up the abuse of authority had become an issue, and because absurd tax cuts were still being granted to the rich so that the cost of this war could be passed on to future generations instead.

[SDW2001]

jimmac,

I don't understand your post about "throwing bones". Kerry is in terrible shape. Bush could still lose, and I know that. That's all I'm saying.

[Existence]

Originally posted by jimmac
Like I said if Kerry asks the right questions he'll cut Bush to pieces. This isn't Al Gore.;)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/presidential.debates/index.html

I can't wait myself!

You realize the debates are a pathetic joke, don't you? Bush would only agree to three debates, and then only under certain conditions. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/09/20/debate.memo.pdf)

For example, this gem is in that document:


5. (f) The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.


The debates will end up helping Bush more than Kerry. Supporting Kerry is a lost cause. Bush has already won--he has the media in his pocket.

www.votecobb.org

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gilsch
A Bush freak is telling me I'm in denial. Priceless. There's other polls that show a much closer race, but choose the ones that make your eyes water when you see Bush on TV if you like.

Funny how Time and Newsweek are good for you now. I'm sure you've never bitched about them being "liberal rags".

Jesus. I'm talking averages here. The fact that time and newsweek lean left lends MORE credence to them, not less. Hello?

You really are in denial. The Harris poll is out of line will nearly all the rest. Just look a the trend. At least people like existence and ShawnJ (even though we disgaree on well, everything) can admit to and percieve the poltical reality, regardless of who they support.


PS: I support Bush. I'm not a Bush freak. Maybe I should start calling you a "Kerry freak." Oh wait... except no one actually likes Kerry...not even his own base. My fault.

[rok]

hey, i really do not think i can support bush, and those running around doing the smearing for him anger me beyond description, BUT, driving into work today, i hear on NPR kerry saying that he would have not gone to war knowing there were no WMDs. wow, what a bold statement... to have been made THREE MONTHS AGO. jesus.

i mean, even if there was some sort of nuanced context NPR was leaving out, i just sat there thinking "nice one, john. you just handed the election away." he's just saying whatever will get him up in the polls. while it's important to "say the right thing," at some point you must stick to your guns no matter what. gore made the same damn mistake, freaking out and trying to appeal to the other side too much. look at bush. he knows where his fervent supporters are, and plays to them like meat to starving animals. then they turn around and do the work FOR HIM. the technique disturbs me, but it is very effective.

why is it so hard for either party to find someone who's well-spoken, intelligent, appeals to a wide range of demographics, yet has no skeletons in the closet and takes a stance and sticks by it? or is that just impossible for a politician to achieve these days?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Existence
You realize the debates are a pathetic joke, don't you? Bush would only agree to three debates, and then only under certain conditions. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/09/20/debate.memo.pdf)

For example, this gem is in that document:



The debates will end up helping Bush more than Kerry. Supporting Kerry is a lost cause. Bush has already won--he has the media in his pocket.

www.votecobb.org


This coming from someone who wants us to vote independent.:rolleyes:

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rok
hey, i really do not think i can support bush, and those running around doing the smearing for him anger me beyond description, BUT, driving into work today, i hear on NPR kerry saying that he would have not gone to war knowing there were no WMDs. wow, what a bold statement... to have been made THREE MONTHS AGO. jesus.

i mean, even if there was some sort of nuanced context NPR was leaving out, i just sat there thinking "nice one, john. you just handed the election away." he's just saying whatever will get him up in the polls. while it's important to "say the right thing," at some point you must stick to your guns no matter what. gore made the same damn mistake, freaking out and trying to appeal to the other side too much. look at bush. he knows where his fervent supporters are, and plays to them like meat to starving animals. then they turn around and do the work FOR HIM. the technique disturbs me, but it is very effective.

why is it so hard for either party to find someone who's well-spoken, intelligent, appeals to a wide range of demographics, yet has no skeletons in the closet and takes a stance and sticks by it? or is that just impossible for a politician to achieve these days? So what is it that bothers you exactly?!?! the timing?

Sure it shoulda been said sooner . . . but now is better than never

[rok]

Originally posted by pfflam
So what is it that bothers you exactly?!?! the timing?

Sure it shoulda been said sooner . . . but now is better than never

actually, as stupid as it sounds, yeah, the timing. i said in a previous post elsewhere that i felt kerry didn't believe we should have gone to war, based on how he danced around the subject, but didn't want his poll numbers to dive because he was perceived as all those things the republican attack machine is labeling anti-bush people: namely anti-security, anti-troop, etc. of course, his advisors also likely said that he couldn't play to his war roots and still be anti-war at the same time. makes sense on paper, anyway.

but dean uncorked a bottle in his pre-iowa campaigning that, if he could have has clinton's gift for words, really could have made a dent in the campaign trail.

so yeah, it is the timing. don't worry. i'm still not voting for bush, but kerry is getting batted around like a cat toy now.

i hold out hope for the debates (they couldn't be as mind-numbingly bad as 2000... "lockbox," anyone?), but i get a bad feeling both candidates will come out looking, by and large, the same. and when both candidates look the same to joe-sixpack voter, why change the system?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus. I'm talking averages here. The fact that time and newsweek lean left lends MORE credence to them, not less. Hello? lol More credence eh? Oh right, because together they're conspiring to defeat Bush. :lol: Oh wait. The polls favor Bush, so I guess they're fair and balanced. Me likey the Newsweek.
You really are in denial. The Harris poll is out of line will nearly all the rest. Just look a the trend. At least people like existence and ShawnJ (even though we disgaree on well, everything) can admit to and percieve the poltical reality, regardless of who they support. Listen Bush freak, I used the Harris poll to give you an example of how the polls vary. Sorry it just went right over your head. I don't believe in polls. I was wrong in assuming rationality could cut into your thick veil of Bush fanaticism. My bad.
PS: I support Bush. I'm not a Bush freak. Maybe I should start calling you a "Kerry freak." Oh wait... except no one actually likes Kerry...not even his own base. My fault. Listen, you have a magnificent track in record in AO of defending Bush at all costs and no matter what...so I'll just be nicer and call you a Bush fanatic instead.

Right. Nobody likes Kerry. He'll get zero votes in November. :lol:

Love and defend Bush and the Republican Party Above All
Love and defend Bush and the Republican Party Above All
Love and defend Bush and the Republican Party Above All
Love and defend Bush and the Republican Party Above All
Love and defend Bush and the Republican Party Above All

[jimmac]

Once again this is how those polls can vary :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You got that from his post!?

Talk about being lazy!

:rolleyes:

Shetline specifically refuted that kind of simplistic "black and white" thinking-- yet all you can do is ignorantly cling to the same catch-phrases.

I certainly haven't seen any support for your lazy generalization that Kerry supporters "blame Bush for everything." But I can sure name a few to the contrary: Like whenever I see some headline in the media about Democrats worried about the direction of Sen. Kerry's campaign-- they're blaming Bush. When they criticize him for attacking too aggressively, not aggressively enough, too late, too early, too much on one subject-- that's blaming Bush.

He didn't refute it. He didn't even prove that Kerry has shades of gray to his reasoning and rationales. All he said is that people who don't support Kerry are lazy thinkers. He then showed his own lazy thinking by reciting every bit of spin Kerry has used to justify his continually changing position on the war in Iraq.

As for your example, it actually supports Fellowship's reasoning instead of refuting it. The reason Democrats have to now worry about Kerry's campaign is because they never choose him because of what he stood for, but rather because of who he stood against. They choose him because he convinced people he was "electable" not that he had some great purpose or plan.

Now they are waiting for Kerry to communicate his better ideals and are anguished to discover he really hasn't got any. Kerry ends up splitting hairs about matters instead of simply declaring a position to be wrongly or rightly held because, surprise, Kerry doesn't want to take a position.

The left believes they have better ideals, but won't run on them. Kerry and the DNC continue to talk about Vietnam, guard service, anything to avoid discussing their own agenda. When asked why they won't, they of course blame Bush claiming he has made the campaign about photo-ops, people and personalities instead of plans.

Nick

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Existence
You realize the debates are a pathetic joke, don't you? Bush would only agree to three debates, and then only under certain conditions. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/09/20/debate.memo.pdf)

For example, this gem is in that document:



The debates will end up helping Bush more than Kerry. Supporting Kerry is a lost cause. Bush has already won--he has the media in his pocket.

www.votecobb.org

Well, that's the way it was in 2000 as well. I think it's a good idea. Gore broke that rule in debate three, as I recall.

[pfflam]

There seems to be some melting going on somewhere . . . but the melting I'm talking about isn't from Kerry:

GOP's Chafee can't promise he'll vote for Bush

A moderate Republican senator says he might have to write in a candidate on the ballot in November rather than vote for George W. Bush. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who has opposed many of Bush's policies from tax cuts to Iraq, says he is still a Republican and will vote for a member of his own party -- but just can't promise he'll vote for Bush. It says a lot about this administration when centrists like Chafee have to hunt around for a write-in candidate because going with the nominee isn't an option. But since Chafee isn't declaring support for Kerry, hasn't challenged anyone to a duel, or given any wild-eyed fanatical speeches, his comments probably won't garner the attention that GOP convention prop Zell Miller has received.

But they should. Chafee is now at least the fourth Republican senator in a few days to express serious misgivings about the president's ability to lead -- just six weeks before a presidential election. Chafee's remarks come on the heels of other prominent Republican lawmakers taking to the airwaves to criticize the president. Sens. McCain, Hagel, and Lugar aren't saying they won't vote for Bush, but their surprisingly sharp assessments over the weekend of Bush's handling of Iraq may well inspire others to vote against him. McCain even went so far as to say Bush has not been "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people on just how bad the situation is in Iraq.

Sure, Chafee's ballot dilemma and the thoughtful criticism from McCain, Hagel and Lugar don't provide the high drama of zany Zell hurling verbal spitballs at his party's nomineee. But unlike Miller's gimmicky antics in New York, the doubts and concerns expressed by these moderate, respected GOP senators actually mean something.

(From Salon warroom) add this to delegates that are expressing an inability to vate for 'their man Bush' (WVirginia) and it may seem like a melt down from within

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
hey, i really do not think i can support bush, and those running around doing the smearing for him anger me beyond description, BUT, driving into work today, i hear on NPR kerry saying that he would have not gone to war knowing there were no WMDs. wow, what a bold statement... to have been made THREE MONTHS AGO. jesus.

i mean, even if there was some sort of nuanced context NPR was leaving out, i just sat there thinking "nice one, john. you just handed the election away." he's just saying whatever will get him up in the polls. while it's important to "say the right thing," at some point you must stick to your guns no matter what. gore made the same damn mistake, freaking out and trying to appeal to the other side too much. look at bush. he knows where his fervent supporters are, and plays to them like meat to starving animals. then they turn around and do the work FOR HIM. the technique disturbs me, but it is very effective.

why is it so hard for either party to find someone who's well-spoken, intelligent, appeals to a wide range of demographics, yet has no skeletons in the closet and takes a stance and sticks by it? or is that just impossible for a politician to achieve these days?

Well, the only thing I'd add is that Kerry saying that would be fine, but he just recently said that he would have still voted for the resolution even knowing what he knows today. He is so totally all over the map.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, the only thing I'd add is that Kerry saying that would be fine, but he just recently said that he would have still voted for the resolution even knowing what he knows today. He is so totally all over the map. But the flip flop accusation mistakes, quite intentionally, the vote to give the president power to go to a war with going to war with Iraq at the time and in the manner in which Bush did.

I see absolutely NO flip flop there.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, the only thing I'd add is that Kerry saying that would be fine, but he just recently said that he would have still voted for the resolution even knowing what he knows today. He is so totally all over the map.

The resolution which stated that the president is authorized to go to war barring any obvious diplomatic means to get um uh weapons inspectors back into the country (oh fuck it -- we got weapons inspectors into the country). In fact, this entire debate is retarded. There were no weapons. We went to war because of the weapons (because in fact the weapons inspectors weren't finding the weapons that weren't there).

Kerry's position is perfectly logical given all this.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
:err:

It's maddening really-- because people don't get away with simply changing the subject or addressing another person only to ignore what that person actually said-- they don't get away with that in class. In fact, they would sound pretty dumb. :)


But that's been the tactic used by SDW and the like all along. If they were forced to address what the other person said they might have to justify their position.

Either that or they duck and cover and you don't here from them for awhile. At which time they surface and start up the same rhetorical nonsense.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
There seems to be some melting going on somewhere . . . but the melting I'm talking about isn't from Kerry:



(From Salon warroom) add this to delegates that are expressing an inability to vate for 'their man Bush' (WVirginia) and it may seem like a melt down from within

Yeah, bush is screwed. :no:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
But the flip flop accusation mistakes, quite intentionally, the vote to give the president power to go to a war with going to war with Iraq at the time and in the manner in which Bush did.

I see absolutely NO flip flop there.

That's stupid. It really is. He authorized Bush to use force and then bush did. Oh, gee...he couldn't have imagined would Bush would actually DO it!!!

LOL

:lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
But that's been the tactic used by SDW and the like all along. If they were forced to address what the other person said they might have to justify their position.

Either that or they duck and cover and you don't here from them for awhile. At which time they surface and start up the same rhetorical nonsense.

That's a cheapshot. I will happy to defend any one of my positions anywhere, anytime. You're the one running around screaming "Out the Door in 2004" and frothing at the mouth.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's stupid. It really is. He authorized Bush to use force and then bush did. Oh, gee...he couldn't have imagined would Bush would actually DO it!!!

LOL

:lol: No it isn't

[rageous]

Originally posted by jimmac
But that's been the tactic used by SDW and the like all along...

Hopefully by "and the like" you don't simply mean people with obvious republican stances? (note: that's not a criticism)

Because there are more than enough people of both political persuasions that like to go off on tangents around here.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
There's no "flip-flop." President Bush certainly abused his authority in rushing to war. But also--and i think you're right on this-- everyone knew Bush was going to war anyway. It was a mistake for the Democrats to assume good faith on President Bush's part-- and I seem to remember everyone knowing it at the time, too.

I don't know what they could have done differently. Perhaps a tougher resolution?

I think that's unfair. The resolution was passed in October. Bush waited until March. You can't say that's rushing. In addition, I don't think I really need to spell out Saddam's past violations, including his blatant violation of the original 1991 ceasfire agreement. We could have justifiably gone to war just for him firing on our aircraft that patrolled the no fly zone. "The rush to war" and "Unilateral action" have become a rallying cry for Democrats. Too bad they're both bogus. Bush went to the UN. Bush involved other nations. We had beeen waiting on Saddam for 11 years. Rush to war my ass.

Kerry has been all over the map. Even Don Imus, who has endorsed Kerry, said his position was unclear. Kerry knew full well what he voted for. He voted that way because it was poltically expediant for him. Then, when it becmae clear that Dean had energized the base, he had to roll with the new wave. Now he's realizing he must be a centrist to win, but at the same time he risks alienating some of his base if he is seen as too pro war. Kerry, in his own words, fully believed Saddam had WMD and fully supported his removal. He backed Bush completely. Then, in the blink fo an eye, he's out telling MTV that he didn't expect Bush to "fuck it up" so badly. Right John.

Kerry really has taken several positions Shawn. It's incredible even for him:

1. I support removing Saddam by force
2. I will vote for additional supplemental funding, even if it's not the version of the bill I want. (this comment is on video).
3. I actually did vote for the funding, before I voted against it. I wanted a different version.
4. When asked if he would have voted for the war KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS TODAY, he said he would.
5. Within days, he said this was the wrong war at the wrong time
6. He said he wanted the troops out within six months of his adminsitration
7. He said that he wanted troops out during his first term
8. He wants more US troops
9. He wants more non-us troops.


That's just for starters. This is why Bush will win, Shawn. Bush is basically sticking to his original position no matter how unpopular it is. That's why poll numbers on "was Iraq worth it?" don't matter. People will pick that APPROACH over the other.

As I said, someone else could probably focus on Iraq and win. Kerry can't.

[Neø]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're the one running around screaming "Out the Door in 2004" and frothing at the mouth.

exactly

[faust9]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. I support removing Saddam by force
2. I will vote for additional supplemental funding, even if it's not the version of the bill I want. (this comment is on video).
3. I actually did vote for the funding, before I voted against it. I wanted a different version.
4. When asked if he would have voted for the war KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS TODAY, he said he would.
5. Within days, he said this was the wrong war at the wrong time
6. He said he wanted the troops out within six months of his adminsitration
7. He said that he wanted troops out during his first term
8. He wants more US troops
9. He wants more non-us troops.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I see you got the RNC talking points memo this week. Odd how Bush and his cohorts use this one day and the next it appears here on PO.

BTW did you analyze those prior to posting them? How's 9 a FF? How's 7 a FF? 3's been disproved time and again but you'll keep buying the lies anyway. 8 how's that a FF? 6 occurs when one stops buying the lies put out by the White House and starts accepting the realities of Bush's F__K-up. 2 goes with three he didn't say which bill he would for though did he? 4/5 are hard to justify. Personally I don't care. Maybe in that two day time period he had an epiphany. 1 again how is this a FF?

Just curious because I'd like to juxtapose your responses to actual admin, congressional/senatorial, weapons inspector conclusions. You know crazy people like David Kay FF'ing and the like.

Good day.

[edit] added the above in no good order all jumbeled in on paragraph because I have a cold and feel crotchity at the moment.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
6. He said he wanted the troops out within six months of his adminsitration
7. He said that he wanted troops out during his first term
8. He wants more US troops
9. He wants more non-us troops. A bunch of those aren't even accurate. #6 just isn't true, he's said consistently lately that he wants to begin bringing troops home within 6 months, and hoped they could all be home by the end of his first term. #8 is true, but refers to the overall strength of the US Army, which he wants to increase by 40,000 men, and not to the number of US troops deployed in Iraq, which he wants to begin drawing down (#6) while trying to bring other nations in to help (#9).

[pfflam]

"Flip-flopping" false claim . . . Kerry is consistent RE: Iraq (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2004/09/23/KERRY.TMP)

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a cheapshot. I will happy to defend any one of my positions anywhere, anytime. You're the one running around screaming "Out the Door in 2004" and frothing at the mouth.

You start a thread called "Kerry Meltdown" and then say Democrats are "frothing at the mouth". Sometime you're a broken record without a mirror.

:no:

[SDW2001]

OR. GASP, maybe I just see Kerry's statements and make those judgements myself. He really said those things, faust. I've seen and heard the actual clips in context. Please.



Originally posted by faust9
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I see you got the RNC talking points memo this week. Odd how Bush and his cohorts use this one day and the next it appears here on PO.

BTW did you analyze those prior to posting them? How's 9 a FF? How's 7 a FF? 3's been disproved time and again but you'll keep buying the lies anyway. 8 how's that a FF? 6 occurs when one stops buying the lies put out by the White House and starts accepting the realities of Bush's F__K-up. 2 goes with three he didn't say which bill he would for though did he? 4/5 are hard to justify. Personally I don't care. Maybe in that two day time period he had an epiphany. 1 again how is this a FF?

Just curious because I'd like to juxtapose your responses to actual admin, congressional/senatorial, weapons inspector conclusions. You know crazy people like David Kay FF'ing and the like.

Good day.

[edit] added the above in no good order all jumbeled in on paragraph because I have a cold and feel crotchity at the moment.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
You start a thread called "Kerry Meltdown" and then say Democrats are "frothing at the mouth". Sometime you're a broken record without a mirror.

:no:

Now hold on. Are you disagreeing that Kerry is melting down? If so, perhaps you could explain.

And really...aren't certain people here frothing at the mouth, figuratively speaking? There are those that would do ANYTHING to replace Bush. There are those that will deny the total shift in this race since Kerry's convention. In July, it was Kerry's race to lose. Now it's Bush's.

The meltdown keeps getting worse. Just when I think Kerry can't possibly be an more stupid, he ups the ante. Today he came out and challeneged the Prime Minister of Iraq on his comments to Congress. Whether Kerry has a point or not, this is so fucking stupid I don't know where to begin. Shit, he's attacking Allawi and calling HIM a liar now, too? Wow. Stupidest Political Move, EVAR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4509663,00.html

High level Democrats already know this thing is over. The Dems have even stopped advertising in several former battleground states because they've turned blood red. NJ is almost a dead heat. Bush is within 5 in NY? You're telling me Kerry's not pretty much fucked? Kerry is behind in nearly every swing state including my home, Pennsylvania. If Kerry cannot win PA, he loses. Once the polls indicate he goes down by more than 5 in PA, it's game over. This might turn out to be a landslide after all.

[faust9]

Originally posted by SDW2001
OR. GASP, maybe I just see Kerry's statements and make those judgements myself. He really said those things, faust. I've seen and heard the actual clips in context. Please.

Right. You just happen to mirror the comments made by the Bush team.... Oh, I believe you (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by faust9
Right. You just happen to mirror the comments made by the Bush team.... Oh, I believe you (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

I don't know if I mirror them or not. I don't even know what exactly the Bush folks have said. But those are Kerry's positions and anyone can clearly see them or hear them, any time they want to. Kerry was a staunch supporter of removing Saddam. He was very supportive right up through December. Then, when Dean flamed out, Kerry changed completely. All of the comments I've referenced are on video and/or audio. I didn't make them up.


I suppose it's easier for you, though, if you just dismiss me as a crazy Bush partisan that quotes from Republican talking points. It let's you avoid actually having to show me Kerry's "consistent" position.

This is not to say that I don't ever look at Republican materials. The best and most well done piece I've seen is Kerry on Iraq by the RNC. I'd be interested to know what you think of that piece. Even if one ignores the commentary that the RNC has added, the news clips of Kerry's statements tell the story all too well.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
High level Democrats already know this thing is over. The Dems have even stopped advertising in several former battleground states because they've turned blood red. NJ is almost a dead heat. Bush is within 5 in NY? You're telling me Kerry's not pretty much fucked? Kerry is behind in nearly every swing state including my home, Pennsylvania. If Kerry cannot win PA, he loses. Once the polls indicate he goes down by more than 5 in PA, it's game over. This might turn out to be a landslide after all. You can rest easy, SDW. The latest state polls have Kerry back to a 14-point lead in NY, and also has him leading in PA and FL. In fact, electoral-vote.com says the situation now is likely to be a perfect dead heat - a 269-269 tie. The analysis is a nice read today.

Incidentally, the latest polls in CO and MD, like the old NY one, show a sudden 10-15 point swing in Bush's favor. I'm sure those results will last as long as the NY one did. It's apparently not just Gallup using the New Math.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Towel
You can rest easy, SDW. The latest state polls have Kerry back to a 14-point lead in NY, and also has him leading in PA and FL. In fact, electoral-vote.com says the situation now is likely to be a perfect dead heat - a 269-269 tie. The analysis is a nice read today.

Incidentally, the latest polls in CO and MD, like the old NY one, show a sudden 10-15 point swing in Bush's favor. I'm sure those results will last as long as the NY one did. It's apparently not just Gallup using the New Math.

Umm...no. Kerry is down in FL, and it looks like he's back up in PA according to that site. It has Bush at 311 votes right now. I don't really trust that site no matter what it says. But since you do, look at their final prediction model and tell me Kerry's not screwed.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep24p.html

[faust9]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Umm...no. Kerry is down in FL, and it looks like he's back up in PA according to that site. It has Bush at 311 votes right now. I don't really trust that site no matter what it says. But since you do, look at their final prediction model and tell me Kerry's not screwed.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep24p.html

Well, the CNN/Gallup poll (weighted toward Bush BTW) says otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/24/battleground.polls/index.html Unfortunetly, a lot of the meta-poll sites are not able to maintine up-to-minute reports though the page claims.

Here's a more up to date map: http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html

Oh, and it looks like the current projections don't include the Gallup poll data.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by faust9
Well, the CNN/Gallup poll (weighted toward Bush BTW) says otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/24/battleground.polls/index.html Unfortunetly, a lot of the meta-poll sites are not able to maintine up-to-minute reports though the page claims.

Here's a more up to date map: http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html

Oh, and it looks like the current projections don't include the Gallup poll data.

I never said it wasn't tight.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Umm...no. Kerry is down in FL, and it looks like he's back up in PA according to that site. It has Bush at 311 votes right now. I don't really trust that site no matter what it says. But since you do, look at their final prediction model and tell me Kerry's not screwed.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep24p.html The site updates almost every day. You obviously missed yesterday's update. For some reason, today he abandoned his most-recent-poll methodology, and is instead coloring the map based on his trendlines. I never liked those trendlines. They only cover a few weeks, and they're amateurishly linear. The former in particular - right now, they start just before the RNC and include Bush's post-RNC bounce. Based on that, they all tend to trend upward for Bush, although the most recent polls show that bounce evaporating. I won't trust the trendlines until we're far enough away from the RNC that it doesn't bias the data, a point he makes himself in the text.