Posted on 10/02/2004 5:47:04 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
LA TIMES POLL SUNDAY: Bush's favorability rating among debate viewers actually improved slightly (although within the survey's margin of error). Before debate, 51% of watchers viewed Bush favorably, 49% unfavorably; after, numbers were 52% and 47%...
I actually watched the entire debate last night on PBS for the first time. And I don't know what people are talking about when they say Kerry won. IMO Bush was hands down the more impressive debater. Unless you have been completely isolated and have not paid ANY attention to world affairs for the last few years you could plainly see that all Kerry is is a BS artist. He said absolutely nothing of any substance in the first debate. Kerry devoted more than half his time to talking about bringing in more 'allies', ie France and Germany, to help in Iraq. And if you know anything about what happened leading up to the war in Iraq you know that getting French and German troops into Iraq is an impossibility.....unless Kerry is going to sell out and allow the UN(France) to run all military operations in Iraq and thereby ruin everything we have achieved there so far.
There are some problems with that poll, not the least of which it is the only one of five polls I've seen that show any significant movement to Kerry in the topline number and key internals -- and that includes the partisan (D) Democracy Corp poll that came out earlier today as well as Rasmussen (yuck), ABC News, CBS News, and Gallup. Also, the poll is only of registered voters, was taken in large part on late Thursday night in the Pacific Time Zone (where Kerry leads in three states, including California), and was taken over barely more than the course of a single day (Friday, with small parts of late Thursday and Saturday morning mixed in).
If we really want to know what is happening, keep an eye on the overall poll averages on www.realclearpolitics.com. If other polls show a similar five point shift to Kerry, then we really know something. If Newsweak is the odd man out in left field, we'll know that, too.
People know the real thing as opposed to pure BS. Go W!!!
Translation: if the election were held today, Bush would get roughly 52% of the popular vote, or slightly higher. Job approval rating is the single best predictor of an incumbent's vote on Election Day.
I love the backdrop of the kinds of day the candidates had before the debate.
Bush: Comforting hurricane victims.
Kerry: Manicure.
Game over.
And the thing about Bush is that he is direct, he doesn't bullshit...that came across. Most Americans are like that. Not everyone windsurfs.
Do you have the internals of the Newsweek poll. I can't seem to find then.
Kerry won on style because the majority of the time he kept his tone moderated, responded smoothly to questioning (which some have suspicions about) and, oh, kept his posture upright.
On substance, Bush did well and kerry dug his own grave with phrases like a "Global test" and stating a lie that G.W. withdrew forces from Afganistan that Franks needed.
Dems are now realizing how royally he screwed up and are trying to keep debate on G.W.'s facial expressions. Isn't going to work. We're going to hammer Kerry on what he said.
And the other half of the time he talked about how we needed no allies in dealing with North Korea!
Bush's facial expressions while listening and lack of good posture seem to be the main complaints...and his inability to take advantage and point out Kerry's misleading/lying statements..
.No one seemed to notice that Kerry was clearly misstating previous positions and promoting the UN as our Secy of Defense,co CIC, wanting us to sign the global warming treaty and generally,promoting disarmament,etc...found another weapon or so to get rid of ,too...in our defense.
Kerry was clearly wrong in some of his facts,too.
I forgot to add that not only did Kerry basically say that we need France and Germany in Iraq he also said that HE could convince them somehow to join us in Iraq. Kerry also never, not once, during the debate recoginized the role Poland is playing. Kerry actually went out of his way to denigrate the role Poland is playing in Iraq multiple times during the debate.....and Kerry's only apparent reason for doing so is because Poland isn't France or Germany.
There's a difference in being outraged as opposed to being arrogant and condesending and W's not either, although threre are those who try to paint him that way. And I find it ironic that the very people who accuse Bush as being arrogant are themselves that way - like Kerry himself, and Theresa Heinz and Hillary and Al Gore.
Yeah. Bilateral talks with a madman...that's the ticket!
Yep! Kerry was all noise signifying nothing.
And here is the complete article from Newsmax concerning the Gallup Poll.
Staffers at the Kerry campaign may want to put the cork back in their champagne bottles after they examine the internal numbers in the latest Gallup poll.
Sure, most felt that the Massachusetts Democrat was the better debater by a whopping margin of 53 to 37 percent.
Kerry did even better when Gallup asked which candidate expressed himself clearly, beating Bush 60 to 32 percent.
But when asked which of the two was more believable, it was Bush over Kerry - 50 to 45 percent.
On which candidate did better on the issues, again it was Bush over Kerry, 49 to 46 percent.
Those surveyed by Gallup also apparently didn't buy the media's line that the president came off as irritated and petulant. Asked who was more likable, it was Bush over Kerry again, 48 to 41 percent.
But the worst news for team Kerry came when Gallup asked which candidate was tough enough to be president, a question that taps into concerns that Kerry may be weak on terror.
Gallup respondents gave the "tough enough" award to Bush - and by a landslide, 54 to 37 percent
"And I don't know what people are talking about when they say Kerry won"
I truly felt after the debate that all of Kerry's shots bounced off of W. Kerry was Guy Smiley. I'm still not worried at all. Most voters have already decided how they'll vote and it'll take much more than media spin to shake them.
I wish someone would do a poll on "should Kerry lead the US military?" This is one of the most important reasons why Kerry cannot win. With his history it is unthinkable that he should be elected their leader.
Increasing the number of demoncrats by 15%
Increasing the number of Independents by 3%
DECREASING the number of Republicans by 12%
Princeton Associates polling is run by demoncrat hacks.
In all fairness, I don't know if Newsweak did this on purpose or, like Gallup, does not weight its samples by party affiliation. I do agree with Gallup that weighting by party affiliation is a mistake that should be avoided because it destroys the randomness of the sample and, therefore, the accuracy or reliability of the poll.
I do know that this poll has major problems for other reasons. First, they polled late Thursday night in the Mountain and Pacific Time zones. The Pacific Time zone is where Kerry leads in California, Washington, Hawaii, and maybe Oregon. The Mountain states are more pro-Bush, but also much less densely populated. Such geographically manipulated sampling destroys the randomness of the sample and, therefore, the scientific reliability of the poll.
Second, they had to finish this poll by Noon or so today in order to get it published in time for their next magazine edition. So, in effect, it is little more than a one day tracking poll taken on Friday.
Third, it is reporting something that none of other five polls I'm aware of (including the partisan Democrat Democracy Corp poll) are reporting -- any significant movement towards Kerry in the top line or in the key internals.
Fourth, they are polling registered voters, not likely voters. The difference is huge.
So take a breath and wait for other polls to come out. If they show similar movement, fine, we have a problem. But don't bet the ranch just yet that Kerry will get any more than a minor bump, if even that much, in the aggregate average of the next round of major polls.
He was too human.
Kerry projected an image of masterful debater, tall, forceful, and in any partial sentence fragment well-spoken. Aloof, "Presidential" of a distant unreachable variety Soi disant -- too use a francish bonnie mot I have no idea what it means. But when talking of Kerry one must tout alors use some french. Kerry was styling. All Pompadour and Circumstance.
Whereas Bush didn't project at all.
He was just a man, a fellow human. Can't hate a man when he appears like that.
The wave against Bush broke in that debate. His hate of the haters has lost any mooring it had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.