I agree - it's not yet over, and it is possible that something dramatic could reverse the recent trends. However experience suggests this would have to be something fairly big - an unexpected setback on some major governance or policy issue, or a dramatic new turn in the forthcoming debates.
The character issues, which Kerry has done so much to create and perpetuate, are likely to have a lasting adverse effect on the voting public's perception of him. So far the attempts by his supporters, both those associated with him and others who merely support him, to tar Bush with similar things have backfired badly - not a good sign for Kerry.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:01 am
Sorry george, that last paragraph is way too subjective. It could easily be argued that it's the other way around, most easily the "done so much to create and perpetuate" -- I'd say that's Bush's doing more than Kerry's.
But we're getting into the "there you go again" phase. I think the electorate are looking for something else to glom onto -- after the SBVfT and memo waves -- and whatever is glommed onto now will have a lot to do with the short-term direction of the polls. I saw Kerry addressing the fact that Bush has been sugarcoating the status and prognosis of Iraq, contradicting a very sober and pessimistic internal report he received at the end of July -- that could pull together a few strands that would resonate. (Bush's lack of a coherent plan for Iraq and consequences; Bush's blinders, seeing what he wants to see and ignoring the rest, no matter how factual it may be; Bush's general willingness to mislead; etc.)
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:19 am
sozobe wrote:
Sorry george, that last paragraph is way too subjective. It could easily be argued that it's the other way around, most easily the "done so much to create and perpetuate"
Perhaps you are right, but I doubt it. I may be unduly influenced by my own Navy experience and my long familiarity with the political career (in the Navy and out of it) of this modern day would be Alcibiades. Kerry is a narcissistic, amoral con man on the make, full of self-righteous indignation, self-conscious posturing, but without any leadership potential and in the grip of wrongheaded left wing cant. He does dress well though.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:22 am
Just to interject ... the term "Sugar Coating" may receive a bit more attention over the coming days ... attention centered on where and by whom it recently has been used. There appear to be some interesting "coincidences" regarding it, Rathergate, and the timing and context of Kerry's first public pronouncement of the term in his campaign oratory. Just rumormill stuff, not even really highly regarded out there in the blogosphere yet, but perhaps gaining momentum.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:25 am
So what though, timber? There are often words that are uttered, make sense, and are taken up by others. I see word and phrase trends here all the time. Is my use a quote - unquote "coincidence"? (Egad, I've been uncovered as a pawn of the vast left-wing conspiracy...)
george, there ya go, much less subjective. ;-)
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:36 am
I dunno if anything will come of it, Soz ... as I said, its just rumormill stuff. I suspect, however, that Rathergate is a ways from settlin' down yet, and I suspect the as-of-this-writing momentarily impending CBS public announcement will do little to satisfy the circling sharks. If past is prologue, CBS will be less than contrite regarding "The thrust of the story", and will defend Rather, even if casting some of his crew members adrift by way of damage control ... a tack certain to keep things heated up. We'll see.
I see no upside for Kerry in any of the related probable future developments. Even if not tarred directly, he has been damaged through guilt-by-association merely by being the intended beneficiary of the fraud.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:45 am
The upside I see is that the focus of all of this is still that Bush did NOT fulfull his ANG requirements, and there is much more to that than the memos.
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:54 am
*sigh*
He did fulfill his ANG requirements. Just not to the left's high standards and criteria that they refuse to use in regards to Kerry's first band-aid purple heart.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 09:59 am
It's still an open question, McG. This article from the NYT seems to be saying "no" pretty definitively... I'm still reading it.
This is getting off topic, though, I saw the article because D'art posted it on the "memo" thread, can continue it there.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 10:01 am
(but to close up what I'm saying here, I was pointing out an upside, which is the focus -- the focus is that Bush did not fulfill his ANG duties, and there is a lot more to that than the memos. That focus helps Kerry and hurts Bush. I'm not saying whether it is a fact or not... I'm still waiting for more information [and this article seems to have a lot of it... gonna finish it now].)
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 10:32 am
Soz, the folks "waiting for more information", along with those actively working to develop "more information" to butress their prefererred assumption in the matter have been doing so, diligently, vigorously, hopefully, and doggedly, but without success, for over 5 years. The referenced NYT article rests much of its thrust on points of contention, presenting the writers' conclusions as fact, while by objective examination, no such conclusions are supportable. As one example of shoddy journalism among many in that article, the contention Barnes helped Bush enter the Guard appears increasingly unlikely to be factual. If anything, Rathergate effecticvely has killed the "Bush Shirked" meme, even if it takes a while for that to sink in among Bush's detractors. The longer those who cling to it continue to push it, the more damge they do to their own cause.
0 Replies
OCCOM BILL
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 10:58 am
I think some folks might be forgetting that this isn't a level playing field. Kerry's service record being in question is relevant insofar as we are trying to guess what he might do as commander in chief of our military. In Bush's case, he's already had the job for several years so we don't have to guess what he might do... making his 30 year old stuff rather irrelevant. If their rolls were reversed, so too would be the degrees of relevance in the two stories (SBVFT and Guard stuff). But that isn't the case here.
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:00 am
If Mr. Bush's recent efforts are going to be seriously considered, O'Bill, then I hope he's got a powerful anti-perspirant. Cuz the odor is quite noticeable next door.
0 Replies
Cycloptichorn
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:05 am
In Bush's case, he's already had the job for several years so we don't have to guess what he might do. <--- Bill
You're right, we don't. What he has done with our military is seen by many strategic leaders as a failure, both of intelligence and planning.
Sure, we beat up on Iraq and Afghanistan. But so what? Was there any question that we would kick their asses? No.
The true measurement of the CIC is not in how he governs our forces during battles where the US has overwhelming superiority... it is in using those forces effectively in cases we don't; like, say, post-war Iraq, which has been a huge mess.
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
OCCOM BILL
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:14 am
Strategically speaking, ehBeth and Cy, that would be a far more realistic target. But, Kerry's own voting record makes it a difficult one to hit. I'll say it again.
Them Dems should have went with the General.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:14 am
Just to sorta redirect the discussion here, I'll note that when polled on the questions, voters place little importance on either the allegations directed toward Bush's Guard service or or those directed toward Kerry's Vietnam Service.
I will note, however, Rathergate will likely serve as a major impediment to Kerry's attempt to come off the defensive and gain any initiative. He is going to be held to reacting to, not directing, the course of events for a while yet.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:16 am
timber, the records that a lot of the new stuff is based on were just released by the White House this year (I forget if January or February.)
But yes, there are many other threads we can continue that discussion on.
0 Replies
Cycloptichorn
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:19 am
No, it won't.
'Rathergate,' as you are fond of calling it, has no more impact on Kerry than the SBVfT fiasco has had on Bush.
You'd just like to think so because you are, yaknow, rabidly partisan.
The debates will affect the outcome of this election more than any of these stupid allegations one way or the other; it wouldn't surprise me if the debates had higher ratings than we've had for years on presidential debates.
That being said, it's still a toss-up in my mind as to who will actually win said debates; I of course am pulling for Kerry but Bush has won all of his debates to date, and changed the format to make it easier for him, so it's hard to predict.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
.
You'd just like to think so because you are, yaknow, rabidly partisan.
Compared to whom ?
0 Replies
Cycloptichorn
1
Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2004 11:33 am
Back to the topic.
I found a nice piece this morning on why the gallup poll is full of sh*t. Pisses me off.
Quote:
Friday :: Sep 17, 2004
Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll This Morning - And Maybe Other Gallup Polls As Well
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?
Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:
Likely Voter Sample Party IDs - Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%
In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from Gallup earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?
According to John Zogby himself:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.
So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven't been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?
Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll are to be taken seriously.
How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?
Not very likely.
The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup's CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats.
Oversampling. Bleh. The part that gets me is that the mis-representation of the race may discourage voters...
