I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Wolf - Frist - Hawks!
I read this editorial in the WP today. I agree with it 100%. The jist of the story is that repubs fight down and dirty and win, and dems don't fight at all, and hope people will be impressed by their civility.
It was a shame. During the convention the word was no Bush negativity. The repubs followed no such protocol and attaked the shit out of Kerry. Republicans have paid no price. Dems have. After the dem convention, Kerry gained a big lead, had bush by the throat and let go. Republicans would not have done it. Even statesmen like Dole and Bush I implied that Kerry made up shit to get his medals. Meanwhile in August, where were the other dems surrogates? I did not see any-not any good ones. Meanwhile, where were the dems working the refs (the media. After the last Gore campaign, I would have called out the wayward journalist and said that I would be keeping an eye on them to see if they are going to be helping bush. They still may help bush, but they would be watching their back the whole time. Dems (except for Clinton) just have no balls and want to be liked instead of feared. This is why Bush will win. Kerry needs to say something really hardh that will ratchet up the stakes for Bush. Another mistake-not mentioning Osama. If a dem were prez, you the repubs would be mentioning Osama in each speech, and would not be concerned about the price they would pay if/when Osama is found. Like I said a few days ago-I want to see Kerry snap the knife blade off in Bush spinal chord from the force of the blunt trama, rhetorically speaking-not this pussy shit that has been going on. Where are the nasty ads from the dems; y'all could talk about DUI's, manslaughter charges, cocain, abortion, halliburton, Plame, medicare scandal.......... But the dems have shown themselves to be pussies. There is a new Dashle add where he and Bush are embracing-how lame is that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...6-
2004Sep3.html
But the Media aren't biased, right?
Polls are interesting over a period of time, to reveal trendlines or to show the effects of popular or unpopular policies. As day-to-day indicators, they are useless - though they do provide fodder for the media.
Just go to polltracks.com and look at the president's favorable tracking poll, where all the leading polls are plotted, over a period of several years.
Tells you everything you need to know about where Bush is headed.
From consortium news:
"This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid “amen corner” of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate.
For weeks now, George W. Bush’s campaign has been radically testing the limits of how thoroughly one party can lie, misrepresent and smear without paying any price and indeed while reaping rewards in the opinion polls. Bush personally capped off this binge of dishonesty with his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, continuing his pattern of lying about how the war in Iraq began. "
This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid “amen corner” of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate.
For weeks now, George W. Bush’s campaign has been radically testing the limits of how thoroughly one party can lie, misrepresent and smear without paying any price and indeed while reaping rewards in the opinion polls. Bush personally capped off this binge of dishonesty with his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, continuing his pattern of lying about how the war in Iraq began.
This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid “amen corner” of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate.
For weeks now, George W. Bush’s campaign has been radically testing the limits of how thoroughly one party can lie, misrepresent and smear without paying any price and indeed while reaping rewards in the opinion polls. Bush personally capped off this binge of dishonesty with his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, continuing his pattern of lying about how the war in Iraq began."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/20...004/
090404.html
It's not Gallup. It's SRBI for Time. Gallup does the USA Today/CNN.
per the poll. It looks like there are several earlier polls that also have similar wording and also show a slight lead for Bush. See "CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 23-25" for an example.
However, the Time poll seems to be more insistent on pushing the undecideds into a particular candidate's box where the earlier polls are more understated in making the undecideds choose.
I don't understand why people are amazed. The Republicans got their Friday news cycle to echo with this improper poll, even though it is wrong.
They fight this way, that is to say, they are dirty rotten scoundrels.
But I feel the more they play up a non-existing lead, the more they are going to get out the vote of the left and have their followers eel secure enough to maybe not vote. Just a early morning observation. Back to bed.
You know it is almost as if they...
...want to start the buzz of inevitability...
...so their biases become accepted reality...
*pounds head against wall*
Bush Ignored Terrorism for Months
Bush Ignored Terrorism for Months
Bush Ignored Terrorism for Months
why isn't kerry saying this? this line of attack needs to be resuscitated and repeated so often that people are muttering it in their sleep. kerry has to take 9/11 away from bush.
It's too early to be pushing undecideds.
But this week's media story was going to be the Bush Bounce, so they made it happen.
Time should jettison this polling company, post-haste. Should they fail to do so, the end result would be to contribute to the feeling that elections just don't mean a thing any more - or more specifically, how citizens are supposed to be involved in elections don't mean squat.
Why does TIME hate America?
OT: Big announcement at Blah3 today. Happy damn day at Casa Stranger.
Can someone phone up SRBI (I know, it's a Saturday, but they obviously want the weekend for publicity) and ask exactly why they pushed the leaners this time? And what are the non-pushed numbers, please?
Pushing leaners? During the RNC? Sheesh. That's like showing people an hour of commercials for Coke and asking them which cola they prefer.
Relax. James Zogby (on PBS Wall Street Week with Fortune) has Bush up by 2%, says it will dissipate by next week, and that it is still Kerry's to lose.
They really are SCUM, aren't they?
starting in january, there's an opportunity to impose some internal discipline. daschle should be first.
DASCHLE: Aw, c'mon, Mr. President. It's just politics, you know how it is. You weren't gonna carry ND anyway.
KERRY: And I'll be damned if I sign a bill that spends as much as a nickle in North Dakota. New highway rest areas? Kiss my Irish ass. Federal courthouse? Fuck you. Now get out of my sight. Maybe I'll see you when I'm in Fargo, campaigning for your opponent in the next primary. Just politics, dickdrip.
OK, substitute SD for ND and Pierre for Fargo. My concept ran away with my knowledge, and I haven't had coffee yet.... 
Yep, Zogby made the point that every Bush bounce has been smaller than the last.
And if you look at the internals, the wrong-track / someone else are all against Chimpy.
But who gives a fuck? They're polls. They're there to fill cablenews space.
Speaking of whores, anyone else see Bill Maher last night? He read off Unka Karl's talking points perfectly: Bush got an 11 point bounce, people haven't really hardened their positions, Miller gave a brilliant speech (!)... then, as he was wiping the cum off his chin, on bounced Silly Sully, who, at least while I was watching, gave absolutely positively no hint that he had just announced on his site he would not vote for Bush because of the hatred unleashed at their convention. In fact, he spent the whole time praising the genius of the Republicans, including echoing Maher's spin on Crazy Zell.
"Two-bit fucking whore" doesn't even begin to describe it...
It isn't just pushing the leaners.
-It asked to speak to the youngest male over 18 years old. This presents a strong bias toward male voters, who are more likely to be Bush supporters. Methodology (pdf)
-It was conducted DURING the RNC, when Republicans were more likely to be home.(see paragraph below on ratings)
-Unlike other polls, it pushed Likely Voters for a choice.
So, the poll is biased towards male Republicans, and the undecided were pushed for a choice during the RNC.
Worthless poll.
Ratings for Thursday:
"Fox News Channel averaged 7.3 million viewers between 10 and 11pm Thursday, early ratings data demonstrates. CNN averaged 2.65 million and MSNBC averaged 1.7 million during the hour."
MediaBistro.com
Is this an intentional effort to create momentum for Bush? Or is this polling firm just absolutely and completely inept? It is difficult to believe that anyone who has taken even one semester of statistics could have designed this poll this way and think it was representative of current political opinion.
On the other hand, it is way, way encouraging that only 51% of largely male largely Republican 'Likely Voters' favor Bush. Nevertheless, this poll MUST be debunked.
Any suggestions for someone to take over from Daschle -- someone who won't be forced to kiss GOP ass at election-time?
Harkin? Levin? Feingold? Midwest, safe seat?
...this poll MUST be debunked.
Actually, the thing to do is smile and grin, and just wait for all the other polls in the next couple of weeks to prove this one wrong.
Then start clucking your tongue and wonder, in a very loud voice, how Bush wasted his "advantage."
Then start clucking your tongue and wonder, in a very loud voice, how Bush wasted his "advantage."
As long as the other pollsters don't start pushing leaners too. But I don't think that's likely.
"Actually, the thing to do is smile and grin, and just wait for all the other polls in the next couple of weeks to prove this one wrong.
Then start clucking your tongue and wonder, in a very loud voice, how Bush wasted his "advantage."
dave | Email | Homepage | 09.04.04 - 9:15 am | #"
Not how it was wrong - push how precipitous Bush's fall has been over such a short time.
dave, that is a good strategy; "the bush bounce is history" I think that Bush will end up with a 4pt bounce
The stats mean one thing:
If you want to boost your ratings in the poll, then it is absolutely vital that you monopolize tv coverage and push your opponent off the air.
It doesn't matter what you say. What matters is that you hog the time.
'The Bush bounce is like the Bush recovery.'
The "Bounce" is fine. As is the statement made by one of the repuke operatives that the tide has turned in the Bush Boy's favor and that the whole thing is over. Let the smug bastards be overconfident.
Overconfidence plays right into Kerry's hands. He should be able to carve the Bush Boy up into little pieces over the next 2 months.
I read this editorial in the WP today. I agree with it 100%. The jist of the story is that repubs fight down and dirty and win, and dems don't fight at all, and hope people will be impressed by their civility.
I am full-bore sick of this baseless analysis.
Tell it to Bill Clinton. Tell it to the man who bore up under the most relentless political shit storm I have ever seen stirred up against any politician. Clinton never morphed into George H.W. or Dubya; never went looking for a "Willie Horton" moment; never found a Zell Miller to preach hate and bile at the Convention; never hid behind a facade of "What, me worry?" while his V.P. and his political advisors and his whole damned party gleefully danced the dance of the Lord of the Flies.
And today, even Daniel Schorr acknowledged that there has been an outpouring of concern for Mr. Clinton's health from Democrats and Republicans. When Schorr slipped and said Clinton was due for a heart transplant, even Scott Simon said there would be people lined up to donate one, if that were the case.
Try to imagine anybody who'd give a wet snap for the health of GHW, or even Dubya. Or Tom DeLay, or Dennis Hastert, or Zell Miller, or any of them.
The notion that Dems have to be nastier than the GOP to win is pure crap. Negative campaigning drives people away from the polls. The GOP is a minority party. It is in their interest to motivate their rabid base, and disgust the rest of us so we stay away in November. For the Dems to respond wholly in kind, is to play right into the GOP's hands.
And I'm sick of our "friends" who keep telling us to do that.
The AP shows no journalism standards at all and the story was timed to hit the evening broadcast and papers without any chance of making sure the
other polling information was available --
And when the Democrats do gith back you get crap from the media sucha s Larry are sure you arena't dead King saying is this proper?
No matter what the Democrats do they will be attacked for it.
Dave, I disagree. The methodology of this poll must be exposed and the polling company needs to be publicly embarrassed about it. They need to be beaten into bloody, pulpy shame about conducting such a dishonest, biased poll and shoving it into the mainstream media. The mainstream media needs to be beat over the head with their stupid gullibility. Any one who has taken even one semester of statistics can see what a piece of shit this poll it. But how many in their audience take the time to look at the methodology? And understand that this is a poll of Male Republican Leaners passed off as representative of current poltical thought.
Waiting and smiling while the RNC gets the upper hand is death to Democrats. Get on the stick and beat them with a stick, I say! (pant, pant, gasp)
Robert M. Jeffers, thanks for that wonderful post.
to Robert Jeffers^^No, Bill Clinton was not relentlessly positive. Pretending he was ignores exactly WHY he got the best of newt gingrich and his clan. Bill Clinton was perfectly capable of going negative.
Oh, also, this isn't 1992. Get the hell over it. Bill Clinton LOST a shitload of seats in the house and senate. Pretending he was some sort of magic bullet is foolish.
Grinning like an idiot while people slander you doesn't just make them look mean, it makes you look weak. Nobody will elect a man who doesnt stand up for himself.If the GOP is the minority party, then how d othey keep winning? Oh yeah, THOSE DIRTY TRICKS.
You may be sick of people like me and Libertarian, but we're sick of people who will screw over the America people just to sleep more soundly at night.
You may be sick of people like me...
Finally, he's making sense!
What did you do when a schoolyard bully teased/harassed/took your lunch money/beat you? If you walked away, it got worse. If you went to the principal, it got worse. If you and your friends beat the shit out of him, it stopped.
Bush is a a bully and he has aurrounded himself with bullies. They do all the classic bully things -they lie, cheat, steal and when busted --they say whatsmatter with you can't you take a joke I was just kidding I think you're swell.
I blame the media especially those who claim to "practice journalism"
The only way to get rid of a bully is to join together an attack him.
Complaining about Kerry is not the answer --this is not his fault and it is not the fault of the campaign.
He did fight back -the media ignored him and played the dirtbagger 20 hours worth of answered dirt from the Mayor of Looneyville alone
And the AP has been consistently poor in its performance ripe for this kind of crap...These people have no shame in the lengths they will go to pimp for Bush
I turned off my tv during the Republican convention and may just leave it off until November.
One must remember two things. One of the black ops the CIA runs the most is influencing elections. Bush's daddy was head of the CIA and probably has plenty of contacts who are happy to lend their expertise.
About CIFA
The Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) has been monitoring Jesus' General, and Call of Cthulhu. What is CIFA?
(from Inner Frenchman)
This reminds me of Molly Ivins' comment about being criticized by Rush Limbaugh. It's like being gummed by a newt.
to Robert Jeffers^^No, Bill Clinton was not relentlessly positive.
Work first on reading comprehension. I never said he was. What I said, was that he never lowered himself to the level of the Bush family. There is an enormous difference. Bush hires out the wet-work: think Cheney, think Zell.
Pretending he was ignores exactly WHY he got the best of newt gingrich and his clan. Bill Clinton was perfectly capable of going negative.
Pray, tell, how did he go "negative" against Gingrich? I think he gave Gingrich enough rope, and Gingrich hung himself.
Oh, also, this isn't 1992. Get the hell over it.
Huh?
Bill Clinton LOST a shitload of seats in the house and senate. Pretending he was some sort of magic bullet is foolish.
No, reading what isn't there is foolish. Clinton rode out the derision of the entire GOP and the media, to leave office a beloved President (as I said earlier, with references to Schorr and Simon). That, oh reading challenged, was my point.
Grinning like an idiot while people slander you doesn't just make them look mean, it makes you look weak.
Am I grinning? Is Kerry? Maybe you missed him in Ohio on Thursday night.
Nobody will elect a man who doesnt stand up for himself. If the GOP is the minority party, then how d othey keep winning? Oh yeah, THOSE DIRTY TRICKS.
And the fact they control the media, maybe? I refer you to Lewis Lapham's excellent analysis in "Harpers." Read something not on the web and longer than three paragraphs. You might learn something.
You may be sick of people like me and Libertarian, but we're sick of people who will screw over the America people just to sleep more soundly at night.
Ah, now I'm the enemy? Nice. Seldom see the GOP turn on it's own like that.
Take a lesson from them.....
Soul | Email | Homepage | 09.04.04 - 9:51 am | #
Robert,
I agree that Clinton played hardball and was an extrodinary politico-thats why he won 2 terms. Kerry is doing neither
MIA,
If you are going to be attacked for whatever you do, then you might as well fight fire with fire. Kerry black op guys need to start playing the game properly. They know hte media are of no use to them
It is time for Kerry to stop floating like a butterfly. It is time to sting like a bee.
Kerry and Edwards speech were pretty good. Not only would have I attcked Bush relentlessly, I would have gone for the throat. Where are the weapon mr prez? were you lying or incompetant? Why has kerry let the flip-flopper meme take hold, when he could have swatted that away with bush flip-flops. Ive seen flip flops on blogs but never on TV where most stupid americans get their news
1) Maher last night was a joke. But it did make me understand what a cut job was done on Howard Dean. As I said during the primaries, if our destiny is to lose, I would rather lose fighting for basic principles and telling the truth, as opposed to losing by pussyfooting around.
2) The Kerry campaign staff doesn't have a clue about what to do. When is JK going to clean house and get some professionals to run this train wreck?
Real Democrats cannot believe that this race is even close with all the ammunition that we have. My view is that it's poor advice to the candidate.
3) Isn't it telling that the main faction that is questioning the poor strategy and lack of aggressiveness by the national campaign are Kerry supporters?
Hey Boston, you have about a 20 day window to give supporters a reason for optimism and a strong incentive to get out and work in October. Otherwise, folks will begin to read the tea leaves and give up, voting and nothing else. You are about to see true passion and enthusiasm turn to crap unless something changes, pronto.
Are you listening? I pray that you are, for all our sakes.
Believe me, the thugs on the other side are trusting that you won't listen.
Jesus, people are stupid. The poll is an outlier, and it doesn't matter, because between the hurricane and the ineptitude of the Russian Army, it didn't get any play.
Democrats don't fight. They're pussies. Yawn. I guess Kerry didn't call Cheney a draft dodger, which shut his ass up for 24 hours. Oh, they're just laying down about Diebold, and the guy who got Bush into the Guard isn't going to be on 60 Minutes this week.
Here's the deal: the media will depict this as an even race until it becomes clear to everyone over the age of nine that Bush is going to lose and lose badly.
This Time poll is the first which has Bush over 50 percent this year.
At best, Bush has stemmed some of the bleeding, but there is a bunch of shit lying in wait for him which he can't control and which could hammer his presidency.
If the Dems are such pussies, why is the GOP trying to back out of one debate? Not the move of a winner.
Given their one note attacks, they're absolutely desperate. The internals must look horrible, except for national security.
One must remember two things. One of the black ops the CIA runs the most is
influencing elections. Bush's daddy was head of the CIA and probably has plenty
of contacts who are happy to lend their expertise.
George Johnston | Email | Homepage | 09.04.04 - 10:03 am | #
This is so on the money I can't believe it's not an issue in the campaign.
For that matter, i can't believe it wasn't an issue back in 92.
Who in God's name thinks it's a good thing to have a president from a family of spooks?
"Given their one note attacks, they're absolutely desperate. The internals must look horrible, except for national security."
i'd have to agree. be objective, and ask yourself this question:
if you were a professional political operative who didn't give a damn about ideology (i.e., a whore), which candidate and which set of issues would give you the best chance of winning?
damn skippy......
doubters,
Remember when people believed that Saddam was waiting-waiting-waiting to launch gas and germs?
Remember that fear? The one that made you want there to be attacks, so that you knew you hadn't been lied to?
Karl Rove thanks you.
Robert M Jeffers - ever the erudite voice of reason on these boards.
Libertarian - I agreed in part with you yesterday, that Americans need to learn to be very afraid of the Bushites. But I don't think that Kerry has anything to worry about. Robert is right about Clinton and you are not.
STFU already, please - it's tiresome to have you say the same things over and over and over and over and...
We all get your point. We got it weeks ago. Find another one.
KERRY: And I'll be damned if I sign a bill that spends as much as a nickle in North Dakota. New highway rest areas? Kiss my Irish ass. Federal courthouse? Fuck you. Now get out of my sight. Maybe I'll see you when I'm in Fargo, campaigning for your opponent in the next primary. Just politics, dickdrip.
I would love to see this. Tom Daschle has done as much damage to the Democratic party as anyone else I can think of. He's got to go.
"Given their one note attacks, they're absolutely desperate. The internals must look horrible, except for national security.
steve_gilliard | Email | Homepage | 09.04.04 - 10:24 am | #"
Thank you Steve. I have valued your agressive insights ever since I started reading you on Kos.
_
Poppy and the CIA? I agree that having an ex-CIA director as prez, like we did with Poppy, is not necessarily a good idea. But honey, where have you been the last year and a half? The CIA is not George's friend. I don't care what Poppy might try - the CIA does not like getting the blame for all of George's mistakes and does not like being pushed out of the main loop by Rummy and Cheney's private spy org.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/...4/
090404V.shtml
McCain: Miller's attack on Kerry could hurt Bush
By Janet Hook
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Friday 03 September 2004
NEW YORK — Sen. John McCain, who has pushed for more civility in this year's presidential race, is warning that the biting attack on Sen. John F. Kerry by a fellow Democrat at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night might harm President Bush's efforts to woo swing voters.
McCain (R-Ariz.) said the keynote address by Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) could prove as controversial as a speech by Pat Buchanan at the 1992 GOP convention in Houston.
"I think it backfires," McCain said of Miller's rhetorical assault on Kerry. He added that it "makes Buchanan's speech … look milquetoast."
As to the poll, I'm not too worried. It's an outlier.
After the way that John and John came out swining at midnight, I'm feeling pretty good about our chances. As someone noted, John called Cheney a draft dodger and all of a sudden, Cheney's got nothing more to say about "unfit to command" and instead is trying to tell Westeners that only Bush can prevent forest fires. That's a whole lot of very effective "shut the fuck up" that John unleased on Cheney's sorry fat ass.
We've got 58 days left. I've already talked to the new barista at my Starbucks and convinced her (she was most of the way there already) that Bush will make it economically impossible for her to finish working her way through college. I'm wearing my Kerry button and driving my car with the Kerry bumper sticker and mowing the grass in my front yard so everyone can see my Kerry sign.
We have to stay focused and work hard and donate until it hurts, but we can do this. We've got to take back the White House and the Senate.
Steve Gillard at 10:24.
Rock on my brother. The other thing the press does not seem to get is that Kerry and Edwards have been and continue to canvass real people in the states as opposed to speaking only to dipshits that sign loyalty oaths so no one will get in that can hurt the little Bush Boy's feelings. I think this fac to face campaigning will have a real positive effect on the election. I realize I've said this before, but I think it is ogin to make a big difference.
I'm already signed up for Election Protection in Philly, since NJ is a safe state. Yesterday I enlisted another friend to join me.
Billy B - I'm waiting for November 3, when the wholly useless media in this country wakes up and collectively says "What the hell happened?" My perception of Kerry's campaign is the same as yours - he has largely by-passed the media and has gone straight to the people and it seems to be working.
Karin - we have an "election protection" PAC in Dallas, too. I joined at the first of the year. Good for you. If we cover every polling place in the country with the statutorily allowed number of Democrats, it will help intimidate the Repugs who may be planning more dirty election bullshit.
Did I say "may"? hahaha.
I'm going to be an election judge for Dallas County. We've got lawyers who will be on stand-by all day election day, who can be at a polling place in about 5 minutes if there is some kind of question. I am positive that the Democrats will be out in force on November 2.
John Edwards spoke at a rally in my town, Stevens Point, Wis. last night. At 6PM, about an hour before Edwards went on we had a hard count of 4900, with a final tally of between 5-6,000.
The crowd was warmed up by Rep. Dave Obey and Sen. Russ Feingold. Edwards went on about 7PM. He gave a great speech that rebutted Bush laundry list of lies point by point. Edwards hit Bush's record on national security, Iraq, the economy/jobs, healthcare, etc. in roughly that order.
There were a lot of WWII, Korean War and Vietnam vets in attendance. According to a few of the vets I talked to, the Swift Boat Vet adds are backfiring. Vets are PISSED that Kerry's record is being questioned by President AWOL and 5 deferment Cheney.
If you are fortunate to live in a swing state, get out to see Edwards. I may be biased because I saw him live, but Edwards has to be one of the great political speakers of this era! He electrified the crowd.
To give you an idea of how amazing it was to get 5-6,000 people on Friday night, consider the competition: the Packer game (we are fanatics here), the first High School football game, wristband night at the County Fair (free carnival rides for the kids), people leaving town for labor day weekend.
From what I understand, the rally in Wausau in the afternoon was timed for the local 5:00 news, the Point rally for the 10:00 news. Both rallies got extensive local coverage. The national media is either not picking up on, or willfully ignoring the enthusiasm the Kerry/Edwards ticket is generating on the local level.
From now until the election, I will be volunteering once a week with the Kerry/Edwards canvassing door to door.
BTW, I didn't see it, but there were apparently 50-100 protesters who tried to block the Edwards motorcade from accessing the park where the rally was held. It sounds like the local police and Edward's Secret Service detail took care of that...
Okay this may be a crazy idea, but why not LET them skew the polls. We know from experience that if BUsh feels he's loosing he gets vicious, and as soon as he feels his little cushion he gets magnanimous and can do things like wish Clinton a speedy recovery. So let him think he's ahead. Those mobilized against him will vote anyway, and he can find out the truth on November 4th, when the only papers to have the headline he expected are Murdochs.
Whadya think?
Newsweek poll confirms Time Poll.
"Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent"
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0409.../
nysa058_1.html
Say goodnight, Jonny. Hope you libs didn't get your foolish little hopes up too high. Don't cry too much now, little lib babies.
One must remember two things. One of the black ops the CIA runs the most is influencing elections. Bush's daddy was head of the CIA and probably has plenty of contacts who are happy to lend their expertise.
Oh, man, you are SO wrong. The CIA despises this administration. I think a lot of the leakage of the internal rotten-ness is actually coming from the Agency. Remember when a Senior Administration Official leaked to the Post that someone inside the admin was shopping Plames name around to SIX reporters? I've always suspected that SAO was Tenet, POed that the WH outted one of his people. When did Tenet resign? when GW Lawyered Up... Hmmmmmmmm.
Richard Head - No need to worry about us, honey. There's all kind of time before November 2. I have known that Bush is burnt toast since it became public knowledge that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
The polling industry is due for a good hard investigation. I'll bet that if their methods are looked at they will be about on the same level as Arthur Andersen's. They know how their results are going to be used and by who they are going to be used and what the results their customers want are. They know that their junk will take the place of real reporting on facts in what passes as news these days.
They're not stupid, they know that if they don't tell the Republicans what they want to hear that someone else will. It's all push polling, just pushing from another side.
Well, I still think they need to be called on their blatant attempt at opinion manipulation.
See this great article about Rove's Brain and Media Manipulation by Norman Solomon
In many states, there's only about 4 or 5 more weeks in which to register to vote. If we can get the turnout we deserve, we can wint the WH and take back the Senate.
If you've got any time at all between now and early to mid-October, GOTV.
Actually, the methodology in the Time poll may be biased, but in more subtle ways than getting more males than females. The samples are weighted against the actual census results on the basis of gender and age.
Asking for the youngest male and the oldest female, may, though, introduce other kinds of bias - is the youngest male in any given household more likely to have a certain viewpoint than the typical male of the same age? Likewise for the oldest female.
I think the fundamental lesson of the bounce Bush got from his convention, as opposed to the smaller bounce Kerry got from his convention, is that going negative works.
Kerry chose not to name names at his convention. The Republicans did just about nothing else at their own convention.
Senator Kerry, learn your lesson, and do what you've got to do.
don't foget a twist of terror in russia.
why are humans so gullible?
Bush uses Russian school atrocity for his campaign:
BROADVIEW HEIGHTS, Ohio - The deadly hostage-taking by militants in Russia reinforces the United States' resolve not to give in to terrorists, President Bush said Saturday.
"Yesterday was a grim reminder of the nature of the terrorists we face," Bush said at a campaign rally in this Cleveland suburb.
"That's why this country must be diligent and strong and never yielding. We must bring them to justice," the president said.
arachnae- there is such a thing as rogue agents. and ex agents that get hired elsewhere don't suddenly lose their skills when they retire and aren't bound by retraints.
wasn't there an ex-cia guy who testified at one of the hearings during the recount in florida?
that butterfly ballot wasn't an accident.
I checked out the SRBI site (from which the posting at Time.com is clearly taken) last night. The current poll is not yet posted, though I suspect that's because it's for the issue of Time that comes out on Monday. Time does not detail the methodology or the specific questions, but SRBI does. In fact, you can look at the survey script itself, including the responses over the past 6 weeks or so.
My impression is that they haven't changed anything in their methodology or polling script- they ask a variety of questions, including pushing the leaners, in each poll. What is different is the timing of the poll (several days after the DNC convention end vs. during the RNC's) and what the media decided to report. I'm waiting till the full poll is released to see how people responded to some of the other standard questions that Time chose not to emphasize.
That said, I have no doubt that the intent as always is to create a perception in the public that Bush is surging, heartening the base and discouraging everyone else from continuing to work for Kerry and eventually from voting.
My opinion is don't dismiss the poll, but don't let it bring you down (it's only castles burning...). People often have emotional responses later modulated by critical thought. Besides, the people who are so malleable that they can shift to Bush on the basis of that factually deficient convention speech will also be swayed by whatever happens in the debates (aka, the recency effect).
National polls do not mean shit because we don't have national elections, we have 50 state elections. Any poll that includes respondents from California or Texas is meaningless. Let's wait for the swing state polls to see where we stand.
Just released Saturday Rasmussen has Bush 49 Kerry 45. I think that's the bounce we are really looking at.
JeffCO,
the fact that they asked to speak to the youngest male over 18 irreparably biases the poll. If you called a random sample of telephone numbers and asked to speak to a male, what is the probability that you'd get a representative sample of men and women? There is no way to 'adjust' for that kind of bias. To be a truly random poll, and they wanted to ask according to gender, they'd have to randomly assign which gender to ask for.
Newsweak poll methodology
Who would you vote for?" If none of these: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward.."
N = 1,008 Registered Voters, 18 and over
Margin of error: plus or minus 4
Interviewing dates: September 2-3, 2004
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR TOTAL ADULTS:
1,188 Total adults (plus or minus 3)
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:
1,008 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
505 Thursday interviews (plus or minus 5)
503 Friday interviews (plus or minus 5)
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
476 Men (plus or minus 5)
532 Women (plus or minus 5)
112 18-29 (plus or minus 10)
349 30-49 (plus or minus 6)
516 50+ (plus or minus 5)
283 Southern White (plus or minus 7)
559 Non-Southern White (plus or minus 5)
144 Non-White (plus or minus 
417 Military households (plus or minus 6)
578 Non-military households (plus or minus 5)
310 Republican states (plus or minus 6)
409 Swing states (plus or minus 6)
289 Democratic states (plus or minus 7)
541 Bush/Cheney supporters (plus or minus 5)
403 Kerry/Edward supporters (plus or minus 6)
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR SUBGROUPS OF REGISTERED VOTERS
INTERVIEWED FRIDAY
187 Republicans (plus or minus
139 Democrats (plus or minus 9)
165 Independents (plus or minus
What Cathleen said. Not random = not scientific = as useful as an internet poll.
The Dems have had surrogates hitting hard but they get no coverage. The Republican propaganda machine (the media) won't let the truth be told.
I'm not sure the election can be won by anyone when truth is completely repressed. Farewell democracy.
Newsweek poll also asked for leaners. Additionally, it polled registered voters, not likely voters as is being widely reported.
Here is the poll question:
"Suppose the election were being held TODAY and you had the following three choices for president and vice president: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans; John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats; and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, the independent or third party candidates. [Choices rotated.] Who would you vote for?" If none of these: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward Bush and Cheney, the Republicans; Kerry and Edwards, the Democrats; or Nader and Camejo?"
Leaning polls were not done during or the day after the DNC, so there is no comparison between the numbers by Time and Newsweek and the polls by ARG and Zogby.
We have two serious obstacles to overcome. #1 - (see Harpers) - millions of dollars being funded into the right wing media machine. They are organized, empowered with cash and focused. #2 - urban areas are not interested in the vote. Sorry Steve Gilliard, but I work in an inner city school voting place and my class is next to the booths, and it's a slow day on voting day. Can't name the percentages, but below 20% (a google search, Sue!) show up. Just because we're right doesn't mean we know how to fight. And that, perhaps, is why we are right. We've never practiced.
417 Military households (plus or minus 6)Does this strike anyone else as not being random at all?
578 Non-military households (plus or minus 5)
Quoting from the methodology section:
"In order that everyone in the household has an equal chance of being interviewed, we asked for the youngest male, 18 years or older. If no male is available was available, we asked for the oldest female, 18 years or older. Asking this question helps to increase the level of chance and make sure that we speak with a diverse population."
As a professional mathematician, I would state authoritatively that this is complete nonsense.
We know from prior polls that Bush's support among males is higher than it is among females. Furthermore, it is specifically higher with younger males than with older males. The filtering process used here can explain the entire 10 point lead.
This poll isn't an "outlier". The word "outlier" implies it's professionally done. What it is is a piece of crap.
They claim that they use weights to adjust for the different subpopulations. But without an explanation of how they do this, the methodology has to be viewed suspiciously. They say "Often data is adjusted so that it accurately reflects the whole population." Why "often"?
Faint heartedness is the problem. Cohen, and wishy-washy liberals like him are the problem:
"To them, to us, to me, John Kerry offers little because, mostly, he gives little."
Cohen is talking down Kerry and the right will use this, as they have for the last week, to argue that he has failed to move his own base. Wake up and stop giving them ammunition. Kerry has a plan and he is executing it. It was Gore's constant shifting and reinventing himself that prevented his sealing the deal. We've hitched ourselves to Kerry's wagon. Now shut up and help push.
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
Republicans 94 4 1 1
Democrats 14 82 1 3
Independents 45 40 9 6
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
Republicans 94 4 1 1
Democrats 14 82 1 3
Independents 45 40 9 6
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
Republicans 94 4 1 1
Democrats 14 82 1 3
Independents 45 40 9 6
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
Republicans 94 4 1 1
Democrats 14 82 1 3
Independents 45 40 9 6
whahappennnnned?
the fact that they asked to speak to the youngest male over 18 irreparably biases the poll.
That may be, but it isn’t my point. SRBI have used the same methodology, flawed though it may be, in their previous polls as well. So the change is unlikely to be due simply to their biasing the sample toward young males this time but not previously. Although I understand the statistics of it, I don't know enough about how national samples are typically collected to know how unusual their method is. However, a bit of research found that it may not be out of line with standard polling techniques.
From UConn’s Roper Center: The interviewer will then randomly select a person in the household to be interviewed. One common method is to ask for the adult in the household who had the most recent birthday. This is done because certain parts of the population, such as young males, are more difficult to get on the phone than others, such as the elderly.
From ABC: The last stage of sampling is respondent selection within the household: Interviewers ask to speak to the household member age 18 or over at home who's had the last birthday. To compensate for the fact that women tend to be easier to reach, in-house selection is stratified by sex, with interviewers asking to speak with the male household member 75 percent of the time and the female 25 percent of the time. If a person of the selected sex is unavailable, the interviewer asks to speak with the person of the other sex who had the last birthday.
From George Mason University: Males and younger adults are the hardest respondents to reach in polls with brief field periods (where there is only time for one or two call-backs). Weekday evenings are the best time to poll, since weekdays and weekends find far fewer people home. Those who are at home at these times are differentially older, female and Republican. They may also differ in other ways associated with their spending less time outside the home.
SRBI don’t have the raw data posted yet, but their previous samples have been roughly 52% female. I’m not disputing that there are many ways to bias a poll, but I wonder whether this “young male” sampling bias is not so big a deal as some have suggested. There are other indicators from this same poll (“deserves re-election”, “wrong track”) that have not substantially changed in Bush’s favor. IMHO the election is still Kerry’s to lose, and the debates will have the biggest impact on the undecideds, but turnout from the base remains the key. Corny as it is, no retreat, baby, and no surrender.
How does it matter that they asked to speak to the youngest male over 18 when they then weight the answers by the demographic pool of likely voters? The poll may or may not be an outlier, but to suddenly question the methodology when the same polls were hailed when the same methodology showed Kerry ahead is the sort of hack-itude Atrios usually criticizes.
Dear Rick,
What is your next step?
Libertarian@8.32 quoted consortium news:
"This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid “amen corner” of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate. "
My grandfather made a trip to America in the 1920's. He came back to Scotland saying there are two types of people in America: suckers and wise guys. Just an anecdote but it still seems true today. Are there enough suckers in the electorate that these wise guys will get back into office again?
It's not just Gallup. Both TIME and Newsweek pulled the same crap.
From an article "GET A GRIP" on American Muckraker--
Now that two polls — one from TIME, one from Newsweek — have shown a double digit lead for Bush over Kerry, nervous Dems are in full panic mode.
Good grief, Chicken Littles, get a grip. The sky is NOT falling!
Several bloggers have already debunked the TIME poll. See my previous article. And the Newsweek poll's more of the same. Both polls, conducted by phone, PUSHED undecideds leaners into making a choice, something polls conducted after Kerry's nomination DID NOT do.
Also, both the TIME and Newsweek polls were conducted DURING the Republican convention, while polls measuring a Kerry bounce were done approximately five days after the Dem convention.
One more thing, TV ratings for the conventions were won by the Republicans. So it's more likely that pollsters reached committed Repugs than Dems when they called during the RNC. FYI, of the networks, FOX News pulled abpout 25% of the 28 million viewers of Bush's acceptance speech. So tell me, were those folks rabid Bushies or not. Do the math.
The TIME and Newsweek polls are crap. If you want to see the more reliable results check the national polls from Zoby, ARG, ABC News, ICR, CNN/USA Today, NBC, even FOX News on The Polling Report. They all show the race even, and pretty much within the MOE.
The sky is not falling, fellow Democrats.
The American Muckraker
I am not a political pollster, but I have worked in marketing research polling for years and have done a handful of local political polls. Everything JeffCO says is true and it's a common and accepted approach to ask for the youngest male. Women are statistically much more likely to answer the phone in most US households, so if you don't do any household selection, you end up with a very biased poll--as much as 70+% female. There are other ways to randomize the household member, including having the computer pick a hh member or using the birthday approach, but since females are more likely to cooperate in any given poll, asking to speak with a male every time has some merit because it gives you a fighting chance of getting a guy every time.
As for pushing the leaners, that's also standard, and there should be data for how they're leaning (one data point) and what they say when pushed (a different data point). The two shouldn't be compared to one another over time, but it's not clear to me that they were.
I've been on vacation and just logged on to see what the polling looked like after the convention. Best idea yet: went to a house on the beach with no electricity for the republican convention. I'll tell ya, it's a lot easier to skim the recap in the Boston Globe the next day than it is to actually listen to/watch that crap.
Here's hoping that what goes up, must come down (that's why they call it bounce, right?)
For anyone working on behalf of Kerry. When someone throws the latest "statistics" in your face, just smile and tell 'em the old Samuel Clemons/Mark Twain quote.
"There's lies, damn lies and statistics."
Keep the faith and give a fellow voter a ride to work. That last ten minutes of Kerry evangelizing might be the difference between living in America or existing in Amurka.
C'mon, read Kevin Drum.
Nothing's changed about the methodology of the major polls.
Mr. Duncan (Hines) Atrios, you could at least have the courtesy to issue a clarification at the minimum, if not a correction.
And must you show a conspiracy theorist side quite so often?
Steve Snyder
Socratic Gadfly
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
