New Time Poll Shows HUGE Convention Bump For President Bush

[ugahairydawgs]

Polling likely voters, 52% for President Bush, 41% for John Kerry, & 3% for Ralph Nader.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

[yin_yang]

nice, looks like Bush is gonna pull it out.

[dcman]

woohoo

[ugahairydawgs]

a number that bodes well for the President...

strong leader...Bush 56...Kerry 37

[bdb23]

nice, looks like Bush is gonna pull it out.
:thumbsup

[yin_yang]

:thumbsup

bush --> :monkey

kerry --> :freak

[bdb23]

bush --> :monkey

kerry --> :freak
:lol :lol :thumbsup

[elf]

doesn't mean much...

Kerry had the same thing after his convention. Wait a few weeks and it'll go back to normal.

[saygoodbye12]

doesn't mean much...

Kerry had the same thing after his convention.
No he didn't.

But it doesn't matter, polls are meaningless.

[ugahairydawgs]

doesn't mean much...

Kerry had the same thing after his convention. Wait a few weeks and it'll go back to normal.
HA! Kerry actually lost ground in many polls and held even in others.

Please....don't get your political news from the funny papers.

[jrcdmb40]

vote g dub

[elf]

HA! Kerry actually lost ground in many polls and held even in others.

Please....don't get your political news from the funny papers.


My bad...I looked it up some more and you're right.

[eric_dmbfan03]

The poll only goes by "likely voters." If you're a member of MoveOn.org, you'd know that during the week of the convention, they've signed up over 500,000 voters that are voting Kerry. Also, it only asked 1,316 people. Now I don't know much about polls but 1,316 isn't a good representation of 100 million plus voters. To say that "Bush is going to pull it out" simply based on these numbers is a fallacy of composition. Polls are dumb.

[eisnach41]

The poll only goes by "likely voters." If you're a member of MoveOn.org, you'd know that during the week of the convention, they've signed up over 500,000 voters that are voting Kerry. Also, it only asked 1,316 people. Now I don't know much about polls but 1,316 isn't a good representation of 100 million plus voters. To say that "Bush is going to pull it out" simply based on these numbers is a fallacy of composition. Polls are dumb.



a scientific poll is anything over 1,000 most polls arent much more then that, and yes if done well 1,000 is enough and they can be dead on

[Dancing Ants]

doesn't mean much...

Kerry had the same thing after his convention. Wait a few weeks and it'll go back to normal.


Nothing like that. And usually when the incumbent gets a large boost post-convention, he keeps it. Ask Dukakis.

[Warehouse21]

Yeah, but the swing voters, the ones that really matter, will watch all three debates. And Bush can get away with his bullshit when he's in a convention, a pep rally for his party. But when kerrry is standing 20 feet away from him, and Bush tries to say that he's "imroved health care", "created jobs", and "made america safer", Kerry will fire right back and make W look like the lying fool that he is. And the swing voters will be watching. The Bible belt, gun wielding rednecks won't be, so they'll still vote for Bush. But the deciding 5% will be, and then we'll see what the polls look like.

[Matt]

Yeah, but the swing voters, the ones that really matter, will watch all three debates. And Bush can get away with his bullshit when he's in a convention, a pep rally for his party. But when kerrry is standing 20 feet away from him, and Bush tries to say that he's "imroved health care", "created jobs", and "made america safer", Kerry will fire right back and make W look like the lying fool that he is. And the swing voters will be watching. The Bible belt, gun wielding rednecks won't be, so they'll still vote for Bush. But the deciding 5% will be, and then we'll see what the polls look like.
Right. Because Kerry's about a sharp as a butter knife.

[Carbon Copy]

doesnt mean much. polls show american average not state average. elections are based on the electorial college and states so unless you see the polll according to states its really doesnt mean much

[nonewdirections]

this is too bad. no political spin needed or "but polls are not accurate" sentiment coming from me -- i just don't like the sound of that news. i think it's funny how people on either side will discredit a statistic as "probably faulty" if it doesn't sound ideologically consistent to them or if the news is "bad."

[haildmb]

Also, it only asked 1,316 people. Now I don't know much about polls but 1,316 isn't a good representation of 100 million plus voters.

actually, fairly simple statistical analysis tends to show that it is a good representation. These aren't games, there are tried and true methods for polling. If they only polled 1300 people, it was done for a reason.

[cbsauder]

im not gonna listen to a poll, whether its close to correct or not. im gonna go by what we hear on nov. 3

[nonewdirections]

im not gonna listen to a poll, whether its close to correct or not. im gonna go by what we hear on nov. 3
also a good idea. but my other point about people selectively believing things based on what they'd like to be true still stands.

[ambysshrink]

Well then I guess that settles it. Call off the elections.

[Number27]

Well then I guess that settles it. Call off the elections.
You've got to be kidding...

[cbsauder]

also a good idea. but my other point about people selectively believing things based on what they'd like to be true still stands.
yea you are always gonna have people that are like that. sort of like "no matter how bad bush is doing in the polls, im just going to say they are inaccurate, and he's going to win."

[dougseh142]

It's comical how all the democrats responding to this thread refuse to believe in the validity of polls all of the sudden. :lol

[cbsauder]

It's comical how all the democrats responding to this thread refuse to believe in the validity of polls all of the sudden. :lol
meh, i dont think polls are ever "accurate." because the election is not going to be held today, its going to be held in nov. (im a bush fan, i just dont really think polls are too accurate.)

[Daevian]

Ok I REALLY try not to flame too much and I honestly don't think I am. I even try not to sound like I'm flaming. But I'm sorry this Topic is kind of....obvious I suppose. Example would be if I went and made a Topic "Skies are still blue today after sunrise."

Oh and I'm all for Jonh Kerry and I also think polls are 100% right. I also think that in a one on one debate Kerry would tear Bush apart. I mean come on has anyone seen Bush answer a question swiftly that he didn't just ask himself?:eek:

lol I'm sorry that was a little over the top but still funny by my easily amused humor's standards.

[Matt]

Ok I REALLY try not to flame too much and I honestly don't think I am. I even try not to sound like I'm flaming. But I'm sorry this Topic is kind of....obvious I suppose. Example would be if I went and made a Topic "Skies are still blue today after sunrise."
Kerry saw little to no bounce after his convention. So I don't think it's obvious, at least not in the context of this race.

[watchtower86]

i dont just think its the polls. i think they are rather accurate. ever since the days before the convention, it seems as if bush has been gaining tons of momentum. i noticed this without a poll. so from what ive seen, the polls arent far off

[Dave G]

I don't know about the polls, but I can tell you that my wife and my best friend,who have never voted in a presidential election no matter how much I busted their ass, are voting for Kerry this time

[taphntm]

Wow, all I really want to say about these polls are three words.

BOOM

SHAKA

LAKA

[sp00tyman]

what ever swing voters mean nothing, its the 50% of our stupid country that doesnt vote that these ppl need to go after

[ambysshrink]

what ever swing voters mean nothing, its the 50% of our stupid country that doesnt vote that these ppl need to go after
No, because they're opinion is irrelivant. :(

[saygoodbye12]

No, because they're opinion is irrelivant. :(
This is true. :thumbsup

[Davenumber40]

Ok I REALLY try not to flame too much and I honestly don't think I am. I even try not to sound like I'm flaming. But I'm sorry this Topic is kind of....obvious I suppose. Example would be if I went and made a Topic "Skies are still blue today after sunrise."

Oh and I'm all for Jonh Kerry and I also think polls are 100% right. I also think that in a one on one debate Kerry would tear Bush apart. I mean come on has anyone seen Bush answer a question swiftly that he didn't just ask himself?:eek:

lol I'm sorry that was a little over the top but still funny by my easily amused humor's standards.

That's the same thing people said about the Bush/Gore debates and he did well enough in those. They scratched the first, he won the second, and Gore edged him in the third. He held his own though.

[ugahairydawgs]

President Bush is an excellent debater, and John Kerry is the first to say so (as he has in the past). The President wiped the floor with both McCain and Gore in 2000. I am kind of curious to see how Kerry does against him.

[cbsauder]

:thumbsup to that. i love watching the debates.

[ambysshrink]

President Bush is an excellent debater, and John Kerry is the first to say so (as he has in the past). The President wiped the floor with both McCain and Gore in 2000.
The president did not "wipe the floor" with Gore in 2000. They tied the first. Bush won the second. Gore won the third.

[cyberhound]

The president did not "wipe the floor" with Gore in 2000. They tied the first. Bush won the second. Gore won the third.
I'd say the guy refered to as Mr. President is the winner.

[ambysshrink]

I'd say the guy refered to as Mr. President is the winner.
You mean the guy who received fewer votes?

He won the U.S. Election. He did not "wipe the floor" in the debates.

[cyberhound]

You mean the guy who received fewer votes?

He won the U.S. Election. He did not "wipe the floor" in the debates.
Are you referring to me with your quotes?

[ambysshrink]

Are you referring to me with your quotes?
No. ugahairydawgs said that.

[ugahairydawgs]

You mean the guy who received fewer votes?

He won the U.S. Election. He did not "wipe the floor" in the debates.
Um...yes...he really did. Gore was so overmatched in those debates it wasn't even funny.

[cbsauder]

You mean the guy who received fewer votes?


people are STILL hung up on the fact that bush lost the popular vote? electoral votes are nothing new people.

[ambysshrink]

people are STILL hung up on the fact that bush lost the popular vote? electoral votes are nothing new people.
Did you even read this thread? Did I ever say Gore won the election? Have you any comprehension? Since you don't appear to have any ability to make a syllogism, let me be condescending and explain it to you.

The question came up as to who won the debates. I made the point that Bush did not "wipe the floor" in the debates, and that that fact was evident in that more people voted for Gore than did for Bush. If Bush had wiped the floor, he'd have received a greater percentage of the overall vote. Plain and simple.

If you can't understand make that connection all by yourself than you have two options to not make an ass of yourself in the future:
1. Don't talk about politics.
2. Become more intelligent.

Or, as was probably the problem here, read the thread.

[ambysshrink]

Um...yes...he really did. Gore was so overmatched in those debates it wasn't even funny.
According to you. And in my the experience of my life, as a major in political science and one who talks to professors of political science quite often, nobody else.

[cyberhound]

Did you even read this thread? Did I ever say Gore won the election? Have you any comprehension? Since you don't appear to have any ability to make a syllogism, let me be condescending and explain it to you.

The question came up as to who won the debates. I made the point that Bush did not "wipe the floor" in the debates, and that that fact was evident in that more people voted for Gore than did for Bush. If Bush had wiped the floor, he'd have received a greater percentage of the overall vote. Plain and simple.

If you can't understand make that connection all by yourself than you have two options to not make an ass of yourself in the future:
1. Don't talk about politics.
2. Become more intelligent.

Or, as was probably the problem here, read the thread.Try as you might, you can't be as condescending as me. You are not up to the task. And, your air of expertise in political science is greatly diminished by the faulty conclusion you've reached here. Evidence does not support the thesis that political debates, especially presidential debates, have a significant effect on voting behavior. Your conclusion might have been more accurate before the 1980's, but not according to recent debates which are largely scripted by the two campaigns. Even then, there is not agreement on the effect of debates. For example, many observers consider the 1960 debate between U.S. presidential candidates Kennedy and Nixon to be a textbook example of television-age political campaigning. It has often been asserted that differences in the two candidates' television personae accounted in part for Kennedy's election victory. Some, however, dispute the significance of the televised 1960 debates, suggesting that while visual cues undoubtedly have the potential to influence voter perceptions, the nature and extent of the influence remain a matter of speculation. There seems to be strong evidence that the electorate watch debates to get information on their candidate and against the opponent candidate. In other words, it cements bases. There is anecdotal evidence that debates are treated as performance events, as spectacle. Much like a football game, fans cheer on their team and jeer the opposing team. Finally, the debates are more like joint press conferences. Not all participants are included. Not all viable issues are addressed. The moderator is selected because he or she is unlikely to be an aggressive reporter, etc.

In other words, that Bush did not wipe the floor in the debates with Al Gore in the presidential debates and that fact was evident in that more people voted for Gore than did for Bush is a baseless statement. Plain and simple. Perhaps you should spend some more quality time with your professors. Or, you could dazzle us all with your artistic abilities once again. I would offer you the same the same advice for not making an ass of yourself that you gave the other guy, but I recognize the futility in doing so.

Oh, and have a nice day!:)

[ambysshrink]

Try as you might, you can't be as condescending as me...
First of all, it's "...you can't be as condescending as I."

But that's neither here nor there.

You are correct as far as the fact that there is no great proven impact on voter behavior when it comes to debates; but regardless, I think the way you judge a debate is by how convincing you are. When two people are arguing, their goal [should] be to convince the other to understand and, if possible, to take on their perspective.

The fact that debates are not efficient (so to speak) as far as convincing others does not change their purpose or the reason for which we have them. Gore did something right if he received the plurality of the popular vote. Was it all because of the debates? Not a chance. Was it partly because of the debates? Yes. It was to some extent. I think that a logical conclusion to reach is that Al Gore was not slaughtered in the debates. Had Bush "wiped the floor," it would have implied that Bush did something that was effective as far as getting an overwhelming number of votes out of the debates, which he did not do.

If your argument is that the debates had little or no impact, then Bush did not accomplish the task of getting additional votes in the debates; and thus, did not "wipe the floor."

Remember, winning an argument doesn't mean making the most sense; it means getting other people to see your point of view. I don't think Bush did a significantly better job of doing that than Gore did.

[cyberhound]

First of all, it's "...you can't be as condescending as I."

But that's neither here nor there.

You are correct as far as the fact that there is no great proven impact on voter behavior when it comes to debates; but regardless, I think the way you judge a debate is by how convincing you are. When two people are arguing, their goal [should] be to convince the other to understand and, if possible, to take on their perspective.

The fact that debates are not efficient (so to speak) as far as convincing others does not change their purpose or the reason for which we have them. Gore did something right if he received the plurality of the popular vote. Was it all because of the debates? Not a chance. Was it partly because of the debates? Yes. It was to some extent. I think that a logical conclusion to reach is that Al Gore was not slaughtered in the debates. Had Bush "wiped the floor," it would have implied that Bush did something that was effective as far as getting an overwhelming number of votes out of the debates, which he did not do.

If your argument is that the debates had little or no impact, then Bush did not accomplish the task of getting additional votes in the debates; and thus, did not "wipe the floor."

Remember, winning an argument doesn't mean making the most sense; it means getting other people to see your point of view. I don't think Bush did a significantly better job of doing that than Gore did.
I don't know why I like arguing...err...debating with you, but I do. You certainly take shit pretty well, and you dish it back pretty good.

Now, to hijack this thread. I am curious as to the actual source of Cigarette Lit. The file I got from you appears to be a mono recording that has been made "stereo." The two channels are identical, and there is quite a bit of tape hiss. The cymbals are a little "essy" sounding as well. Are you sure it's sourced from a studio master?

[ambysshrink]

I don't know why I like arguing...err...debating with you, but I do. You certainly take shit pretty well, and you dish it back pretty good.

Now, to hijack this thread. I am curious as to the actual source of Cigarette Lit. The file I got from you appears to be a mono recording that has been made "stereo." The two channels are identical, and there is quite a bit of tape hiss. The cymbals are a little "essy" sounding as well. Are you sure it's sourced from a studio master?
That's what I was told; but remember that studio master means that there was no post-production (Dolby, Compression, etc), so it would not have appeared like that had it been put out on the CD. There was a bit of confusion about this; I should've been more specific in the text.

As for it being mono, are you sure about that? I only have laptop speakers so I wouldn't be able to tell, but that is definitely bazaar. It's possible that it was a mono-mixdown from the studio master, but it was definitely straight from the studio. Nonetheless if it is in fact mono, I'm dumfounded as to why that would be done. The only guess I could venture to make would be that for that particular demo they didn't want to bother with panning.

[cyberhound]

That's what I was told; but remember that studio master means that there was no post-production (Dolby, Compression, etc), so it would not have appeared like that had it been put out on the CD. There was a bit of confusion about this; I should've been more specific in the text.

As for it being mono, are you sure about that? I only have laptop speakers so I wouldn't be able to tell, but that is definitely bazaar. It's possible that it was a mono-mixdown from the studio master, but it was definitely straight from the studio. Nonetheless if it is in fact mono, I'm dumfounded as to why that would be done. The only guess I could venture to make would be that for that particular demo they didn't want to bother with panning.
It's not horrible mind you. But both channels are identical. I can get rid of the hiss quite easily, but the cymbals are still essy and so are some of Dave's words. I'm an audiophile. I don't know why but I have an ear for such things. Anyway, the reason I noticed it was that I was going to make a new "Some Devil" CD with Cig Lit on it and I was trying to get the levels balanced with the other songs.

[cyberhound]

That's what I was told; but remember that studio master means that there was no post-production (Dolby, Compression, etc), so it would not have appeared like that had it been put out on the CD. There was a bit of confusion about this; I should've been more specific in the text.

As for it being mono, are you sure about that? I only have laptop speakers so I wouldn't be able to tell, but that is definitely bazaar. It's possible that it was a mono-mixdown from the studio master, but it was definitely straight from the studio. Nonetheless if it is in fact mono, I'm dumfounded as to why that would be done. The only guess I could venture to make would be that for that particular demo they didn't want to bother with panning.
Here you go:

http://members.cox.net/shelleyherring/ebaypics/ciglit.jpg

[ambysshrink]

Here you go:

http://members.cox.net/shelleyherring/ebaypics/ciglit.jpg
I'll be damned. You're right. I don't know what to say. :confused: :confused: