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

Frank Apisa wrote:

The real loser in this debate was someone who was not there...George Bush.

I don't know this because I haven't seen the vice presidential debate yet. But I think your general point is very well taken. On the issues, on average, my political views are probably a bit closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats these days. But one major reason I have never actually become a Republican is how sheepishly they fell for this political flim-flam artist. I can't respect a movement whose members prefer to silently put up with totally un-republican nonsense like loyalty-tested campaign speech audiences, rather than speak out on a forum like this and wonder: "Wait a minute -- wtf is George W Bush doing on our ticket?"

0 Replies

Re Nimh's posts, the Bush administration has been consistent in linking Iraq with terrorism and in their belief, based on evidence that there has been a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida. The Bush administration has also been consistent in not linking Iraq with 9/11. Using the references Nimh posted, it is a real stretch to extrapolate these into "Bush says Saddam attacked us on 9/11". Edwards was saying the Bush administration was accusing Iraq of attacking us on 9/11. The Bush administration has never said that, and Edwrds should have been called on it. The only reason I think Cheney didn't more forcefully address it is that it gives Bush an excellent attack point in the next debate. Quite a bit of all that, at least on Cheney's side, was to set up the next debate and I think he gave Bush a lot of help there.

As far as Thomas's implication I am disingenous in my opinion re media spin, I gave that as an opinion and personal observation. I have given examples in prior posts on other threads and don't wish to dig all that out again. I think Nimh is spinning this to fit his point of view. I think the media definitely does that. And I think the rest of you will accept or not accept the spin depending on your particular ideology.

I look for the next several days of polling results to support my belief that Cheney will be perceived as the one on target and Edwards less so in this debate.

0 Replies

Quote:

Edwards was saying the Bush administration was accusing Iraq of attacking us on 9/11.

No, he didn't. Listen carefully. He said that the Bush admin was accusing Iraq of working with and sheltering those who attacked us on 9/11.

Which they do, which numerous reports (even Rumsfeld) have stated that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 at all. There's not even solid evidence that Iraq and AQ had ties together.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Using the references Nimh posted, it is a real stretch to extrapolate these into "Bush says Saddam attacked us on 9/11". Edwards was saying the Bush administration was accusing Iraq of attacking us on 9/11.

No, he didn't. (Look, can you actually take the trouble of looking things up before alleging them?)

Here's what Edwards actually said:

Quote:

Edwards is blaming Cheney - not Bush, not the Bush administration in general, but Cheney, personally, of "suggesting there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th".

That's the allegation, here. In response, Cheney said:

Quote:

Now this is a fairly straightforward up and down. Either Cheney did, or did not "suggest there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11". And of course, Cheney is simply lying - he did suggest such a connection. Numerous times.

The quotes really speak for themselves. He described Iraq as part of "the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." And he claimed first that "it's been pretty well confirmed" that Atta met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service , and later that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague".

If you find any factual incorrectness in the above, please point it out.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

As far as Thomas's implication I am disingenous in my opinion re media spin, I gave that as an opinion and personal observation. I have given examples in prior posts on other threads and don't wish to dig all that out again.

I'm not implying you are being disingenuous -- but I'd be interested in finding out more about Edwards' dishonest statements, of which you say he made more than the media are reporting. No need to dig all that out again if you don't wish to. But if you could just give us the links to those posts so we can read them were you first posted them, that would do just nicely.

0 Replies

Here's direct quotes from the debate that I found in a couple of minutes looking.

Quote:

Mr. Edwards Yes, Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you''ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There''s not.

Mr. Cheney The senator''s got his fact wrong. I have not suggested there''s a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But there''s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that''s the place where you''re most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years

This, unfortunately what the vice what the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything they see every single day. It''s a continuation of where there''s a strong connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It''s not true. It''s a continuation of at least insinuating that there''s some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It''s not true.

I think there's more. Pretty hard to put a spin on that Cyclop. With that and Edwards flat out misrepresenations about funding for education, defense, etc., I still think Cheney managed to encourage a lot of ammunition for Bush in the next debate while Cheney gave very little ammunition to Kerry. It will be interesting to see how the polls shake out over the next couple of weeks. If the American people are paying attention and doing their homework, Bush/Cheney has to look much much better.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Here's direct quotes from the debate that I found in a couple of minutes looking. [..]

I think there's more. Pretty hard to put a spin on that Cyclop.

0 Replies

But the quotes you posted have to be really stretched to make a direct correlation between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, Nimh, and in context, I don't think you can make a good case that Cheney has ever insinuated there was such a connection. A connection between Iraq and terrorism, yes. A connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, yes. A connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, no, and Edwards directly misrepresented that at least twice, and maybe three times during the debate.

Cheney's comments during Meet the Press, September 2003 - Cheney was very very specific about this. He said specifically that he was carefuly not to say there is a direct correlation between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The media has repeatedly pulled excerpts from that exchange that they make look like he did say there was a correlation while if they put it into context it is clear that was not his statement or his intention.

0 Replies

0 Replies

That's because the president's crew uses a tactic called Conflation to suggest it to people.

Never mind that Cheney himself said Iraq was where we would find those responsible for 9/11 a year ago. Cheney et al. make a habit of suggesting two things right next to each other, without actually stating that they are connected.

Nevertheless, this does create a connection in people's minds, especially those with a less discerning ear for detail. The republicans are masters of this deceptive tactic.

Things that Cheney said which are lies:

Quote:

I have not suggested there''s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

This is a bold lie. Chris Matthews on Hardball, directly after the debate, showed the clip where the VP said exactly that a year ago, almost to the date.

Quote:

But there''s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.

Not in comparison to other countries, like, say, saudi arabia or Iran. Edwards mentioned holding them accountable. Did Cheney? Of course not. His company does huge amounts of business with both of them. Despite the fact that we KNOW that Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia held a 'terrorism telethon' last year that reportedly raised over $100 million for terrorism causes. On national TV, no less. That shouldn't stop Haliburton from doing business with them though, nah...

Quote:

And the point is that that''s the place where you''re most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years

This is another bold lie. There is no evidence that Iraq was a 'clearing-house' for terrorism in the way that Sudan and Syria are. None. There was no real terrorist presence in Iraq... until we went there! I wish Edwards had hammered this one home.

None of that is Spin, Fox....

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think you can make a good case that Cheney has ever insinuated there was such a connection.

He claimed that one of the lead hijackers met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer before the attacks of 9/11!

He called Saddam's Iraq "the heart" of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault", "most especially on 9/11"!

That's not "insinuating" a connection - it's claiming it!

<shakes head, too, and gives up>

Oh-kay ... Back to our regularly scheduled programme, I guess ... Very Happy

0 Replies

I respectfully disagree Cyclop. I am convinced of the correctness of my position. You are free to show how Cheney has said what you are saying he said or how he is incorrect in saying what he has said. I support just about everything the vice president has ever said and consider him an honest and truthful person. I do not wish to highjack this thread any further, however, and I suggest that the discussion be moved to a more appropriate thread.

0 Replies

You lose the debate, Fox.

You dropped every argument presented against you, and turtled up in your 'beliefs' and the fact that you are 'convinced' of the VP's position, despite the fact that you are given numerous instances where he flat-out lies.

I understand you have the right to an opinion, but you need to understand that your opinions are not based upon fact OR logic, and stop presenting them as if they have any place in a debate.

You CONSISTENTLY do this, Foxfyre! Don't step up to the table unless you can add substance! I've really lost respect for your posts these last few months (though I doubt that matters to you).

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You are free to show how Cheney has said what you are saying he said

I just did.

I can't make him come over personally or anything, so quoting what he actually said is as much as anyone here can do I'm afraid! Razz

Foxfyre wrote:

I suggest that the discussion be moved to a more appropriate thread.

You're right of course, and I apologize to all for the digression.

0 Replies

Factcheck.org's take:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35409

0 Replies

I tried the link to the Iowa electronic markets on page 107, but I can't seem to find any graphs. Am I just not looking in the right places or do I need to be registered to see the graphs?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

I tried the link to the Iowa electronic markets on page 107, but I can't seem to find any graphs. Am I just not looking in the right places or do I need to be registered to see the graphs?

Hi there. No, you don't need to register. If you start out here, you can first choose which market you want to look at - for example, the "Presidential Election Winner-Takes_All Market" or the "2004 Presidential Election Vote-Share Market". Once you're there, you scroll down to where it says, "IEM Daily Prices Graph". It's here, in fact. It's updated once per day.

0 Replies

For Cyclop: I agree only that you think I'm all wet and that you adopt the usual liberal tactic of attacking the messenger when you're out of ammunition. Smile

For Nimh: When you put those quotes in context of the whole discussion, I'll agree with you that Cheney said 9/11 and Saddam Hussein were related. I won't accept one sentence out of the statement he is making as proof when it doesn't hold up when put into context.

The early polling data I've seen seems to suggest that more people are agreeing with me than with the two of you on how the debate shook out last night.

0 Replies

Oh, I'm not out of ammo. It's just that you refuse to believe any ammo against your candidate at all. Consistently. When presented with it, you claim it isn't accurate and retreat into your beliefs, regardless of the facts...

Look, I really want to continue to have productive debates with ya on the board. I think you are a quality member of the community and a good writer. But you're going to have to show some objectivity if you wish to be taken seriously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The early polling data I've seen seems to suggest that more people are agreeing with me than with the two of you on how the debate shook out last night.

Eh, I thought Cheney won (said so coupla times) - dunno about you.

Only two polls on the debate I've seen thus far were ABC/WaPo (said Cheney won, by 43/35) and CBS (only uncommitted viewers, said Edwards won, by 41/28).

Plus the (unreliable) online polls of course (the MSNBC having it an Edwards landslide and the FoxNews one having it a draw).

Have you got any further polls? Would love to find them.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know