If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

I don't know what survey you're talking about here, but I would almost guess it wasn't scientifically done. I don't know ANY....and I do mean ANY....Bush supporters who can't articulate clearly to me why they support him. They may not be well versed on every single issue--who is other than the professionals?--but they have solid reasons including the issues for suoporting him.

Conversely I haven't found any Kerry supporters either in real life or here on A2K who can articulate why he will make a good president without going back 30 or 40 years and/or without bashing Bush.

0 Replies

Frankly, Cyc, it is not atypical for The Electorate At Large to hold perceptions at odds with reality, Democrat or Republican. What I find most contraindicative of Democratic prospect of success is that they have roundly failed to engage The Electorate ... the "Issues" driving The Democrat Faithful are not "Issues" of any substance whatsoever in the overall mind of The Electorate. The Democrats have "Gotten it wrong". IMHO; whether or not there is merit to their argument, they have failed to make their argument.

0 Replies

I'm going back a bit here... but I feel a very real point was skipped over.

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the earlier piece you quoted, which purported to show that those with more education tend to favor Kerry in proportion to the amount of education they received, was presented by its author to advance his own beliefs, rather than as a dispassionate observation. A good deal depends on where, and in what disciplines, one takes his sample of educated people, and as you know sampling error grows as one drills doun into subsets of the data taken. I have a PhD, and I most certainly do not favor John Kerry.

Really George? That disputed conclusion surprised me not at all, and had I said it; it would have been in a matter of fact tone of voice. It's no secret professors tend to lean left and from what I recall most of my friends who chose to continue their education (excluding those whose fields required it) were the more liberal... and loud liberal at that. My sister and brother-in-law are two of the most hyper-educated people I know... and they personify the term "lefty". More dismaying still; I've noticed over the years that the majority of the intellects I deeply respect are left leaning as well. A2K is no exception... Take inventory of the people you respect right here on this forum

Now as we all know, there is no conversion chart between education and intelligence but I suspect the more educated tend to give off the impression that they believe otherwise (the fellow you referenced above certainly gives off that impression, no?) IMHO, that type of arrogance (Kerry's type of arrogance) is a huge turnoff for mainstream America. Now add Kerry's Senatorial demeanor and Massachusetts accent and that inferred slight is greatly magnified.

Most would agree that Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being. Many would argue that, prior to Bill Clinton's arrival, he was the smartest man ever to serve as President. Unfortunately, many (myself included) would argue that he was a lousy President. I've read the theory that he was so smart, he could see too many sides to every issue and that made it difficult for him to reach conclusions. I'll buy that.

George Bush is a somewhat simple man. I think we all wish he was a little sharper, more articulate and considerate (at the very least) of those he wishes to work with. Perhaps he doesn't see as many sides to the issues as some (perhaps Laughing

). It seems a majority of us are okay with that. Everyone who every worked for me heard the standard business definition of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid and who better to do that than good ole George Bush.

A related theory I've developed over the years, that is to Bush's advantage, is the perception that people see intelligence and honesty as opposing values. I beleive there is a perception that Forrest Gump could no more lie than Slick Willy could tell the truth. When selling a product that doesn't require much know-how; I can increase my sales, believe it or not, by deliberately stuttering, yammering and limiting my vocabulary. I believe people assume they are too smart to be talked in to anything by someone of inferior intelligence so they will deem me more honest. On the flip side of the coin; if I come off too certain of my answers, and effortlessly answer even the most technical questions in a matter of fact tone of voice, that same potential customer's guard will naturally go up. This theory is no more precise than any other generalization, but I assure you I've measured data that supports it.

Conclusion (attempt to tie my babbling to the topic :wink: ): IMHO, it is neither John Kerry' fault nor is there much he can do to change the "perceptions" I alluded to above with mainstream America. Against this incumbent President; if he comes off sounding more intelligent than Bush (very likely), he will also sound arrogant, less honest and likeable (I'm sure he's going to try his best not to actually be smart-alecky, like Dukakis). If he comes off sounding less intelligent than Bush (yeah right), he loses in a landslide. Therefore, I don't see how he can win. Bush could have been defeated, quite easily IMO, but the democrats chose precisely the wrong man to do it.

I predict John Kerry will make better points than Bush, but will lose more ground in the polls anyway. I'll say it again; dem Dems should have went with the General.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Forget about Kerry for the moment, Timber.

Kerry has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Republicans don't know where their candidate stands on a wide range of foreign policy issues, according to the survey.

It is interesting that Kerry, who is seen as a flip-flopper by you, seems to have supporters who are much more able to identify his position.

This, of course, comes as no surprise to me. I'm not saying there aren't Bush supporters who know their stuff; but the majority of them just want to feel safe, because they are scared. Scared people. They couldn't give a damn about issues. It's sad, really.

Cycloptichorn

You are remarkably willing to speak for others about things you can't possibly know. Do you really know what "the majority of Republicans" knows? Do you really know what the unnamed "supporters of Kerry " know or don't know? Do you really know if "the majority of people" are just scared, want only to feel safe, and couldn't care a damn about issues?

Your condescenting attitude is apparent. But do you really know what you are talking about? You have offered no basis for belief whatever. No surprise because these things can't be known. The only remarkable thing here is that you evidently think you do know.

0 Replies

You should take Timber to task, George, if you are truly against such statements. How many times has he spoken on the behalf of the 'people' or the 'electorate?' Here's one for ya right now:

Quote:

I find most contraindicative of Democratic prospect of success is that they have roundly failed to engage The Electorate ... the "Issues" driving The Democrat Faithful are not "Issues" of any substance whatsoever in the overall mind of The Electorate.

So get off my back.

This is a 'polls and bets' thread. If we are to assume that the polls shown represent accurate images of Americans (and those who show you polls with Bush in the lead would like to think this is true, of this I have no doubt), then I have presented you with a poll that confirms what I and many others have believed for a long time; that Bush's support lies not in people's recognition of his issues, but in their perception of his values.

The problem is, his issues are so goddamn bad that we are experiencing serious problems (Domestic and Foreign) because of it! But, challenge a Bush supporter on the issues, and that supporter either has to A)justify all sorts of things that haven't gone well, or B)Fall back to character issues, which is what happens 99% of the time in my experience.

You are of course free to feel however you like, George. However, there is little doubt in my mind that I could dredge up many posts of yours which claim to know the mind of the country, or other things which you couldn't possibly know for sure. Everyone does it as a part of their argument.

Don't make me go looking.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If we are to assume that the polls shown represent accurate images of Americans (and those who show you polls with Bush in the lead would like to think this is true, of this I have no doubt

I don't think I have ever seen anyone who's research was more impartial or accurate than nimh's (and I assure you; he doesn't hope the current polls are accurate). Laughing

0 Replies

Neither have I, Bill. Neither have I.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I still predict a Bush win with a 5% margin.

I'm going to go with George here ...

But there's always hope. And Sozobe's best efforts in Ohio !

(How many others among you are volunteering for either campaign right now? Hold on, wait - lemme make that a thread of its own.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
A closing note - Watch for the Mainstream Media to press, almost desperately so, the idea Kerry "Won" the debate. It is to their interest to maintain the concept of "Close Race" ... foregone conclusions don't sell headlines.

Great comment. Really sets you up for a win-win, doesn't it?

If Bush wins the debate, it's obvious that he meant to. If he loses, the media is only saying so to keep things close.

Yeah, Timber does have this well-honed, almost, let's say, Kerry-esque side to him ... Razz

If there is such a "Liberal Media Bias" that furiously tries to spin the debate's results for the Democrat, it must somehow have gone AWOL four years ago. Back then, the polls held directly after the debate showed a plurality of respondents thinking Gore had won - but polls that were undertaken after a day or two of media punditry showed them convinced that Bush had won. An impression that has since been fortified to where now people think Bush won by a 50%/30% margin.

Either way it makes him an opponent who'll be hard to take on. Bush's weakness is also his strength. He holds to his beliefs and convictions steady like a rock. That's bad news when you're undertaking a war in unfamiliar territory, all the signs say you're doing something wrong, but you're not willing to face the possibility that you might simply, y'know, have been wrong. But in a campaign it's an advantage, as long as you can avoid the impression of being recklessly dogmatic.

Basically, Bush has simply been himself all through the campaign. And when people liked that less (with casualties and scandals in Iraq making him seem obstinate), his numbers went down, and when people were more comfortable with it (with things at least not worsening further), his numbers went up. But he seems to have had to second-guess himself, never have had to doubt about, you know, what should I say when X, or how should I react if Y - he's just himself, and he'll just be himself tonight too. In terms of being stressed out for such a debate and thus prone to waffling, stumbling and appearing insecure, that's a huge advantage.

0 Replies

Here I agree with Nimh. I think the Number 1 reason people who support Bush support him is that he is who he is, every time and all the time. So, unless one is completely opposed to most issues/vallues he supports or has bought into all the negative spin put out by the opposition, he's the man.

0 Replies

Talk about "Not Getting It" ...
Cyc, it seems to me you have a marked propensity to recharcterize what actually has been said to more closely approximate your own preferences and preconceptions.
As a single case-in-point, I call to attention your recent assertion I "speak on behalf of the people or the electorate". Nothing of the sort happens to be the case; I offer my impression of the mood or sentiment of those groups, yes, and from time to time cite polling results and relevant commentariat and punditocracy ramblings in order to show the reasoning behind and to support the development of my opinions and impressions. I do not "speak for" anyone but myself. You may not - clearly do not - like what I have to say, but it is what I have to say. While my political stance may be a minority opinion here on A2K, I do not perceive the political stance you espouse to be the majority opinion of The Populace, a personal perception broadly, even overwhelmingly, validated by public opinion sampling. You say " ... and those who show you polls with Bush in the lead ... ", to which I say no accreditted, independent poll shows, or for the past several weeks has shown, anything other than growing Bush/Republican advantage to be the case, while even self-declared Democratic partisan polls admit, if begrudgingly, that Kerry/Democrats are not gaining, but losing ground.

0 Replies

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote there at all, Timber.

Quote:

I offer my impression of the mood or sentiment of those groups, yes, and from time to time cite polling results and relevant commentariat and punditocracy ramblings in order to show the reasoning behind and to support the development of my opinions and impressions.

And that is exactly what I did, and was chastised for, by George. My point was that everyone offers their impressions and very often leaves off 'well, that's all my opinion.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know what survey you're talking about here, but I would almost guess it wasn't scientifically done.

Cyclo was talking about this survey here, Fox - he quoted it at length just a few posts above yours.

As for its scientific value, you'll find in the article that "The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population [..] For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp."

If you find anything on that site, or elsewhere, that shows the poll was indeed not scientifically done, please do bring it here. I'm always curious to hear how one poll or another is done and what in it worked or did not work. Without it, your reaction remains just another knee-jerk: "That's not what I believe, so it can't be true, must be something fishy with it, I'll just brush it aside".

0 Replies

And I'll grant you that, Cyc ... its all opinion, after all. That's what its all about, and without divergent opinion, there'd be damned little basis for discussion. I like to think most of us are here for the sake of discussion.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

A related theory I've developed over the years, that is to Bush's advantage, is the perception that people see intelligence and honesty as opposing values. I beleive there is a perception that Forrest Gump could no more lie than Slick Willy could tell the truth. When selling a product that doesn't require much know-how; I can increase my sales, believe it or not, by deliberately stuttering, yammering and limiting my vocabulary. I believe people assume they are too smart to be talked in to anything by someone of inferior intelligence so they will deem me more honest. On the flip side of the coin; if I come off too certain of my answers, and effortlessly answer even the most technical questions in a matter of fact tone of voice, that same potential customer's guard will naturally go up. This theory is no more precise than any other generalization, but I assure you I've measured data that supports it.

Great post, Bill, I think you've really got something here. Forrest Gump, yes, as symbol of how, in the popular mind, intelligence and honesty are associated as conflictual values, and the impact that has on the perception of politicians. And of political arguments as well, come to think of it - simple, linear solutions not just being perceived as more "decisive", but also as more honest. And you bring the examples from your own experience to underbuild it. Yep, makes sense, one to remember.

It also ties in with the debate earlier this year about who would be the best of the Democratic primary contenders. Perhaps if we'd thought more about this element (or if the Dem party had thought more about it before fielding the different candidates), we might not have ended up with the Presidential Candidate John Kerry ...

If you're right, you could be right about the rest of your analysis here as well. I hope to God you're not, of course, but it certainly sounds highly plausible ...

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Conclusion (attempt to tie my babbling to the topic :wink: ): IMHO, it is neither John Kerry' fault nor is there much he can do to change the "perceptions" I alluded to above with mainstream America. Against this incumbent President; if he comes off sounding more intelligent than Bush (very likely), he will also sound arrogant, less honest and likeable (I'm sure he's going to try his best not to actually be smart-alecky, like Dukakis). If he comes off sounding less intelligent than Bush (yeah right), he loses in a landslide. Therefore, I don't see how he can win. Bush could have been defeated, quite easily IMO, but the democrats chose precisely the wrong man to do it.

I predict John Kerry will make better points than Bush, but will lose more ground in the polls anyway.

0 Replies

Clark would have destroyed in no time by the fact that he has so little actual experience. Not to mention that I'm sure they would have found something Swiftian on him. At the very least, the alliance with Michael Moore would have been played up. He would have to go back on things he said (flip-flopper) or be closely tied to Moore in voters' minds.

But the experience one would have been the nail in the coffin.

I still think that Kerry was the best of the available candidates. <shrugs> We've been over this, no way to know.

Definitely an interesting analysis, Bill.

0 Replies

One quick aside. It is also my opinion that there is no correlation between intelligence and integrity whatsoever. The perception is completely false Gump lies too.

0 Replies

Well, exactly. But it's the (popular) perception that counts ...

0 Replies

Nimh, okay, I do remember seeing that survey now. It does not change my opinion of people's perception of Bush however, and I think most of the issues cited would be way down on the list of what people want from a president. So far as Kerry's 'position' on anything, how at this time would anybody know for sure given his reliability for sticking with anything?

0 Replies

I think Bill's theory is fascinating and would love to see somebody research it. It certainly rings believable.

Here's another one - pure theory and untested so far as I know:

I think people most resent having their intelligence insulted. While people may make jokes about it, most Bush supporters forgive his occasional stumbles when he uses the wrong word or name or date in casual conversation or extemporaneous speeches. These are recognizes as inadvertent mistakes that we all sometimes make. It is resented when they are mischaracterized as lies.
Likewise, people resent a politician who acts like they are insufficiently intelligent to notice when he does a 180 on a position or fact, sometimes within a fairly short period of time.

My completely unscientific opinion is that Bush therefore has the advantage in this debate. He has the advantage of being perceived as truthful while any inadvertent stumbles will be forgiven. Kerry has the disadvantage of being untruthful or disingenuous no matter how eloquently he makes his case during the debate.

0 Replies

If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know