Initial Poll Results on Debate #3

The Coffee Shop
1

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Kerry wins 53%-39%.

CBS News poll of uncommitted voters: Kerry wins 39%-25%

ABC News: Kerry wins 42%-41%, even though their audience leaned heavily Republican

Interesting, but not altogether surprising. I’m a bit surprised that the numbers are comparable to the first debate, although I thought Kerry had not cleaned his clock as badly as the first debate. What was interesting about the first debate was that the initial poll numbers were 53/37 in favor of Kerry, but 48 hours later he won by 38 points. It’ll be interesting to see if the same occurs here.

I think Bush is paying the price for not holding press conferences and limiting his rallies to those who have signed loyalty oaths, making him think that the entire world is his amen corner, when it clearly is not. As a result, he hasn’t fashioned his physical gestures and speaking rhythms, not to mention smirking, to incorporate the notion that undecideds might find them off-putting.

I don’t think that many people were fundamentally surprised by a clean sweep. The question now is, as we’ve seen that the debates actually have an impact on the polls, when does King Karl roll out his October surprise, or is this Sinclair Broadcasting crap the surprise?

2

Kerry in a 3-peat!

I agree with your assessment. Bush has no clue how to act in these debates. In the first debate he was scowling and in this debate he was smiling at totally inappropriate times. I’ve never seen a politician so lacking in this department. Maybe he’d have had a chance if we elected a president back before television was invented.

Should be interesting how this thing unfolds from here on out…I don’t think even Rove can save this one though…damage is done…

3

Never doubt the ability of Karl Rove.

He’s the classic example of how anything is possible if you’re utterly and completely amoral.

Remember, this is a guy who was behind: Bugging his own office and insinuating that his opponent had done it, despite the fact that the opponent was leading, the bug only had a 6 hour battery, and a range of 100 yds. Spreading ugly flyers attacking his own candidate, hoping to get a backlash against his opponent. Engineering (in conjunction with the Christian Coalition) the brutal and despicable campaign against John McCain (calling him insane, his wife a drug addict, and his adopted daughter the product of an illicit interracial affair) in South Carolina in 2000. It’s amazing that somebody could call himself a Christian yet tolerate this sort of action. Started a whisper campaign against Gov. Ann Richards, insinuating that she was a lesbian. Apparently behind the outing of Valerie Plame.

So while I’m optimistic that Rove can’t save this, I have no illusions about what’s willing and capable of doing. He’s a prime example of somebody who shouldn’t be employed - evidently his bosses have forgotten that government is supposed to be about governing and integrity. But until the public calls him on it, he’ll continue to get away with it. The only consolation is that he blew his SBVT wad a bit early. Oh well.

4

I really think people are very tired of the negative attacks and dirty politics from both sides. I don’t think some crazy move by Rove could be nearly as effective at this point as I think people are to skeptical of everything at this point. You see enough negative ads you start believing none of them. Probably some desperate ugly stuff to come in the next couple weeks though.

6

I think Bush clearly won that debate. At one point there was Kerry; “1.7 million…2.8 million…1 million…580,000 Arizonians…82,000 children…42 million…5 million…”

I’m thinking to myself; “Shut the fuck up you fucking idiot!!” If it were me debating Kerry, I would have busted a move all over his shit with the quickness; “Senator, where did you get those numbers?” …“I challenge you to validate them for the Amerian people”

He would not have been able to do it. The problem with democrats is they make those numbers up and throw them around. The problem with republicans is they don’t demand proof of those claims.

Bush had the edge when he referred to specific numbers that can be validated; Kerry’s voting record in congress.

8

The problem with democrats is they make those numbers up and throw them around. The problem with republicans is they don’t demand proof of those claims.

Wow. Anyone know any good lines involving pot, kettle, and black?

9

Bush didn’t challenge the numbers because he knows they’re right. Read more. The 5,000,000 Americans who have lost health care during Bush’s term, for example, has been widely published. It’s not the democrats making these numbers up. For example:

“The number of uninsured Americans has risen dramatically under President Bush. The Census Bureau recently reported that 45 million Americans lacked health insurance in 2003 -an increase of 1.4 million from 2002 and 5.2 million from 2000.”

If you want to check the census data, the report is at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Look on page 14 for some statistics. Or is this some giant Democrat conspiracy? It took me about 5 mintues to find this data. Check the numbers for yourself. Tell us what you find.

10

**Should be interesting how this thing unfolds from here on out…I don’t think even Rove can save this one though…damage is done… **

I happen to think Kerry did not have one of his better moments but that is not really my point. I agree this is where it gets interesting but I don’t see how doing well in debates, even if you say Kerry won all 3, had any direct impact on who wins. If you ask me who one the first debate I think most people would agree that Kerry one, including me, but I am not voting for Kerry. If Kerry is smart he will not rely on the debates at all. Look what just happened in Australia.

11

do arizonians live in arizonia? where’s that?

13

Where do they get the numbers?

Most of the time both of the statistics that Bush and Kerry give are correct…how so? They often both correct by the context how the numbers were derived and how both parties put their spin on what the numbers mean. For example, sometimes these stats are derived through conservative, liberal, or non-partisan studies/polls/etc… Its not as easy as just saying “Bush is a liar” or “John Kerry is a liar”…George Bush was not lying about Kerry’s voting record but it is devoid of context as well as Kerry’s attacks on the job losses in the Bush Presidency. For example, in the process of passing bills there are often many votes and re-votes and the same bill presented with different revisions…so for a bill that may or may not have eventually been passed a Senator may have voted for and against it several times depending on the changes made to the bill.

When Kerry attacks Bush about losing jobs he is right from a perspective but its without context. Bush became President when the recession was already heading to full force and 9-11 further made the problem worse. So yes Bush lost jobs but has actually done a lot to try to alleviate this loss: tax cuts and war is the quickest way to get out of a recession. I am NOT saying that Bush went to war to stem the recession but war DOES increase spending and has helped to pull this country out of recessions before. I don’t think that Bush has done a bad job in job growth…he was dealt a tough hand and took some effective steps to deal with it.

I will definitely be voting for Kerry for a 1001 reasons other than this one…but I find it unnerving when people on both sides use as their political debating points superficial one liners and rhetoric from their candidates billboard. Its like saying you read and understand James Joyce’s Ulyses because you read the description on the backcover. Context counts for a lot and keeping in mind that both candidates are blatantly trying to manipulate the public to their side and they will do this anyway they can…hopefully as voters people try to see through the BS but unfortunately most people just buy it no real questions asked.

14

– I agree this is where it gets interesting but I don’t see how doing well in debates, even if you say Kerry won all 3, had any direct impact on who wins.

The majority of people, who are not as biased as you and me, prefer Kerry over Bush after watching the debates. Its right in the poll numbers.

15

I don’t think Bush was willing to go out on a limb and challenge numbers. It’s not a good move for him because I think even he would concede that his command of the facts will not be as strong as Kerry’s. Unless of course somebody is pumping them into his ear via transceiver.

I think the polls have clearly contradicted your view of who won. Kerry came in with a clear advantage regarding domestic issues, and nothing that happened in the debate changed that. By contrast, if you look back at Bush’s statements, he said nothing that indicated that he had any sort of second term domestic agenda. He could only talk about No Child Left Behind and bash Kerry, which was a very risky strategy given that he is the incumbent and the election is a referendum on his record. It would have been one thing if Bush was able to weave a coherent and negative view of Kerry during the debate, but he didn’t. He threw in a couple of liberal cracks and that was about it. He simply isn’t smooth and reactive enough to play well on television or convince anybody who isn’t already in his corner.

The Democrats didn’t make up those numbers. I’m sure they stretched some of them, but certainly no worse than Bush stretches Kerry’s words concerning this “global test” and reducing terrorism to a “nuisance”. He takes words utterly out of context and quite literally lies about the meaning so he can get some cheap laughs from his amen corner. Apparently it ain’t working.

16

I’ve lost a little respect for McCain because he’s been so chummy with Bush as of late, despite the fact that you must think he hates him. I certainly would.

Apparently the idea is that McCain is trying to get himself back in good with the RNC, because he will need their help if he eventually seeks higher office. Despite his age and timing, a number of people believe that he still has ambitions for the presidency.

It’s unfortunate. I don’t like watching McCain or Giuliani prostrate themselves to the right when they are really moderates, but that’s the state of politics now.

17

The Democrats didn’t make up those numbers. I’m sure they stretched some of them,

This is what I get so tired of, having to figure out what is the truth. They both do it and it pisses me off. I looked at the famous factcheck.org and they list all kinds of statements both sides got wrong. With all the prep, research and staff it just seems sloppy to me. I understand they are both stretching things to fit their agenda but some of it is flat wrong.

I haven’t heard anyone mention the crack about Cheney’s lesbian daughter. It appears that going back to comment in the VP debate this is starting to ruffle a few feathers. Now Mrs. Edwards says she thinks Mrs. Cheney is ashamed? I think that is low class and the Johns should probably leave peoples daughters and sexual preference out of the debates.

18

Bush bitch-slapped Kerry from the get-go :wink: And Kerry’s gonna lose on November 2nd by a margin of Bush 53%, Kerry 46% and Nader et al 1%. Remember, I’m the great “Know-dini” (I KNOW everything ;-)) Nothing like hearing that a 19 year old WOMAN was the first person to vote in the Afghan elections. I noticed Kerry got all bunged up when Bush brought that up, btw.

Seriously, even when all the polls are averaged, and even after Kerry got to take 3 big hits at Bush (and even the obvious Kerry butt kissers last night on the “Clinton News Network” over at CNN said it was at best a draw for Kerry) he still couldn’t put him away and got no appreciable bump from the 2nd poll onward. In fact, an average of ALL the polls shows Bush with a steady 1 to 1.5% lead, despite Kerry and Edwards’ increasingly annoying and desperate whining.

At best, Kerry held onto people who had already decided to vote for him.

I called last night’s debate “The Complainer-In-Chief versus The Commander-In-Chief”. That’s the problem with Kerry’s campaign: It’s all based on PESSIMISM (“everything sucks”, “we’re worse off” etc.), and in order for Kerry and his supporters to be successful, they’ve got hope that we as a country and a people fail.

Sorry, but he still hasn’t given me A PLAN (and if I hear him say “I’ve got A PLAN” one more time, and gonna throw up all the Powerbars I had for breakfast this morning :slight_smile:

Sincerely,

Cranky Tony

19

– Sorry, but he still hasn’t given me A PLAN (and if I hear him say “I’ve got A PLAN” one more time, and gonna throw up all the Powerbars I had for breakfast this morning :slight_smile:

That is an image I didn’t need!

What is Bush’s plan for the next 4 years?

We have heard even less about this as he’s been too busy defending the past four years. I can’t remember Bush saying he had a plan even once, but then in his mind that would probably indicate he didn’t do something in the last 4 years and he wouldn’t want to admit to that. I’ll give him credit, he is one stubborn SOB.

20

Stubborn ain’t the word (pig-headed has been used, also :-), but his PLAN has been in effect since 9/11 and we all either compliment or criticize him on it every day, the way I see it.

I think Bush has said that he’s willing to run on his record and that he’s not going to run away from it.

I also think that Kerry’s a cipher. He’s all things to all people because he wants to be everything to everybody. Surely, if someone has an issue, he’s said that he’s got A PLAN for it (though what that PLAN is, he hasn’t as yet said :wink:

Me and my employees are electioned-out. Out here, we all just want to vote, RIGHT NOW, and get it over with.

21

Surely, if someone has an issue, he’s said that he’s got A PLAN for it (though what that PLAN is, he hasn’t as yet said :wink:

Me and my employees are electioned-out. Out here, we all just want to vote, RIGHT NOW, and get it over with.

With all due respect, Tony, I don’t think you are listening. Kerry has been pretty clear about what his plans are. He’s consistently mentioned the same things. How to stop job losses? Close loopholes that encourage jobs going overseas. Give a tax credit for creating manufacturing jobs. Etc, etc, etc. He’s been very clear about stating how he wants to do things.

It’s ok if you disagree with what he says (I do on some things, too), but to say he hasn’t clearly articulated what his plans are either says to me that 1) you aren’t listening or 2) you haven’t watched any of the debates. I was talking to a guy at work today who claimed to have watched all three debates and “still doesn’t know where Kerry stands on most major issues”…how is this possible? Both candidates have made it very clear where they stand on practically every issue. How anyone could be undecided at this point is a little beyond me.

22

– It’s ok if you disagree with what he says (I do on some things, too), but to say he hasn’t clearly articulated what his plans are either says to me that 1) you aren’t listening or 2) you haven’t watched any of the debates.

I think the answer is 3) you see what you want to see

Its amazing what you can see if you really put your mind to it!

23

I have listened to all 3 debates, both live and later in the evening on the rerun that we see on all 3 cable news networks (in Hawaii, we get the debate at 3:00PM and then again at 8:00PM).

I disagree that he’s had any sort of articulation about any of the MANY PLANS that he says he has. He’s indulged in populist rhetoric, but with no substance to it. He’s Huey Long to John Edwards’ Elmer Gantry, apparently.

Like I said, he’s a cipher because he’s all things to all people, depending upon the room that he’s working. He’s for the war in Iraq, then he’s against it, but knowing everything that he does now he still feels it was right to take out Saddam, but then he changes his mind and says WRONG, WRONG WRONG!! He’s a big time deer hunter to Field & Stream magazine, claiming to have taken a 16 point buck out on Cape Cod. He’s a Boston Marathon finisher to Runner’s World magazine, even though the magazine or the Marathon organization can find no record of him finishing or even running in one and he himself can’t remember either the year he ran or his finishing time. Does that sound to you like an avid runner (who can usually remember his splits from a 5k that he did 10 years ago)? I’m willing to give him the benefit, though but:

I believe him to be dangerously naive about the world we live in, and that his foreign policy maneuvers will place us in more danger. After all, have any attacks occurred on our soil since 9/11? Has Osama or his #2 henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri been able to stick their heads up, without fear of getting them shot off, since the overthrow of the Taliban? I personally believe Osama’s dead, probably in some cave in Tora Bora, but it wouldn’t matter even if he wasn’t, because whatever trouble he, Zawahiri and Zarqawi are causing, it’s OVER THERE and not OVER HERE.

Really, I’m all for intelligent debate on some domestic issues (and wasn’t the unemployment rate in the '96 election for Clinton higher than it is during this election?), but for me national security is the #1 issue. All the others take a distant, distant second.

Here’s the other issue, like I said in an earlier post: Kerry and the Democrats’ whole campaign has been based on an utter and relentless PESSIMISM. Kerry obviously feels that in order for him to win, we as a people must experience a catastrophe or fail in some great endeavor. To him, the rallying cry must be “LIFE SUCKS right now”, when by almost every measure, it doesn’t. That’s just plain disingenuousness or outright dishonesty.

His partner, John “Benny Hinn” Edwards probably will come out today and say that he’s going to magically raise the dead back to life if he and Kerry are elected. I mean, he’s basically promised those stricken with debilitating diseases that they’re going to get all better once they elect the two John’s. C’mon.

So let’s do this the right way and “flush the Johns” :wink: