Posted on 10/15/2004 11:23:49 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Well, I mispelled it to began with, and then in a rush I picked the wrong correction off the spellcheck list.
I just don't trust Zogby as a messenger of this.
Zogby? Zogby? Why that Islamofascist sympathizer! That pro-'Rat..What's that? W up by 4% in Zogby poll? AND in Rasmussen? Really?
MORE FALAFEL PLEASE!!! WITH 'SPECIAL SAUCE'!!!!!!
;0)
The rumor has it that if Kerry is elected, he will appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court. (Dr. James Dobson on Hannity and Colmes last night.
<><><><><>
A very real possibility.
<><><><><>
All the more reason to re-elect Bush.
The thought of Teresa in the White House and Hillary in the Supreme Court makes me sick! {PUKE!}
Probe: 46,000 New York City Voters Also Registered in Florida
SIGH
I hope EVERONE works as hard as they can to GOTV (conservative vote that is)! The very fate of this country depends on it!
Duh. :)
You bet it is......I have NO RESPECT for the MSM at ALL!!!!!!!!I NEVER WATCH THEM.....Fox is it, and even then I am selective WHAT and WHO I watch on FOX.
I then put 2 and 2 together and this is what I came up with. These "focus groups" were very popular with the networks starting in 1992 when Clinton was challenging Bush 41. They would ask the undecided focus groups who won the debate and if they had made a decision. I believe it was about 60%+ said Clinton won the debate and they would be voting for him. The numbers for both questions were the same. As we know Clinton got all sorts of help from his Hollywood supporters. They are the ones who helped him hone his "town hall" debating skills. Clinton never fooled me for a nano-second, but he did make that "emotional connection" with quite a few voters. Bush 41 did not for whatever reason. I believe the liberals and media thought these focus groups will be very favorable to Clinton, which they were, and thus would influence viewers, which they may have.
The focus groups were repeated in 1996. Clinton again was perceived to have won his debates with Dole, although he didn't have the same hold on undecided voters as he had in 1992. There was a gap in the % of undediceds in the focus groups of who won the debate and who they were going to vote for. Still more than 60% thought Clinton won the debate, but he was not getting the same % of undecideds saying they were now voting for him. People were starting to catch on, that while Clinton may be a smooth talker and "win" a debate, it may not mean he's the guy you want to vote for. Unfortunately, too many people had already been fooled by Clinton and Dole, not exactly Mr. Personality could not sway enough voters and lost the election.
The liberals and the media, still seeing these "focus groups" as a good tool of theirs repeated them in 2000. Keep in mind, while the basic question of the talking heads in post-debate coverage is "who WON the debate", the basic question of these focus groups is not so much of who won the debate, but "have you made up your mind and who are you going to vote for?". These are more and more becoming 2 entirely different questions, as opposed to 1992 when they were basically the same. So what was the liberal and media mindset about the candidates going into the 2000 debates? It was basically that Bush couldn't put 3 words together without mangling the English language, while Gore was this towering intellectual who would cream Bush in the debates. As we look back now, we know that the debates were disasters for Gore. But was that the initial reaction? NO! Many of those "snap polls" showed that Gore won the debates by the same slim margin that are showing Kerry won debates #2 and #3. But we all know that Gore didn't win any votes in the debates, regardless of how many people thought he "won" the debates. What happened in the focus groups? They confirmed this, that while Gore may have won on technical points, undecideds were breaking for Bush! To the horror of the MSM and libs, it was BUSH making that "emotional connection" with the voters, not Gore. It had never dawned on the libs and MSM before that a republican could do that better than a pandering democrat.
I believe the media and libs saw a very similar situation for these debates. Bush, in his strong, plain-spoken manner has a proven track record of connecting with voters. They can see that he is genuine and can honestly relate to them. The libs and MSM also knew they had a candidate who is a "master debator" (heh, heh) but comes off as aloof and elite, and does NOT make an emotional connection. Therefore, I'm sure the fear was once again that while Kerry might win the debates on points, the undecideds in focus groups would say they were breaking for Bush. So, if you are the libs and the media what are you going to focus on - who "won" the debates, or who are the undecided breaking for? You are obviously going to focus on the former, and ignore the latter, which is what we have seen.
Nearly all of the post-debate coverage has been on "who WON the debates???". Where's the focus on undecided voters and asking them who they are going to vote for? Isn't THAT the true measure of who really wins the debates? Imagine watching a football game and the announcers are biased and rooting for one of the teams. They know their team is good at piling up yards and impressive numbers, but has trouble getting the ball across the goal line and that the other team "bends but doesn't break". So, to make it seem like their team is winning, all they will talk about is meaningless stats like yards or time of possession, while ignorning the most important number of them all - the scoreboard.
This is what the MSM is doing, plain and simple. All they want to do is talk about "snap polls". Why? Gore won those in 2000. Would the MSM tell us today that Gore actually won those debates? Hardly. So if those are so unreliable and meaningless why use them? Because it's all they have. Notice how MSNBC got rid of Frank Luntz? They dumped him just a few days before the first debate while he was still under contract. Why? Because they didnt' want to use him? Yes, they didn't want to use him for fear of his "focus groups" showing that Bush was making that "emotional connection" and winning the hearts and minds of the undecideds. So why wait until the last minute to cut him loose? Do you think that they were making their debate coverage plans, which takes months, and then at the last minute decided to dump him? No. I believe this was the plan all along. Knowing that the other networks would already have their coverage plans decided, they dumped him at the last minute knowing it would be too late for him to be picked up by Fox or anyone else. Besides, he is still under contract. No time for him to get out of that and get set up with anyone else.
Gore had about a 5-point lead before the debates, yet trailed afterward. How could that be, when the MSM was telling us that Gore actually won at least 2 of the 3 debates? It's because they don't want to talk about the dirty little secret that undecided voters have become increasingly better at seeing through liberal lines and lies.
These polls now showing Bush re-taking his lead is no surprise whatsoever. After watching the last 2 debates, you just "knew" that Bush was the winner using the only measure that matters at this point - how does he come across to undecided voters. Also, keep in mind this latest poll includes only 1 day of polling after the last debate. Bush's numbers should only grow the next few days as the full effect of the last 2 debates becomes more clear. Bush should have an average lead of 5 points in the polls released next week. Let the media continue to declare that Kerry won the debates, while Bush continues to win the hearts and minds of more Americans.
Then why isn't she out campaigning for Kerry? Is she home nursing her sick husband?
WOW! .... THANKS FOR THE GOOD NEWS LINKS!!
I am in good company!
The MSM structures the debates and the reasction in a way to favor the Liberals.
First, if the questions are all: "What can government do for me?" and in the case of debate #3
Bob S. question: "Life is awful. Is it your fault mr President or do you want to blame someone else?"
... that would tend to steer people away.
In debate #3, though Bush made the case of Kerry as an extremist Liberal, and Kerry, on the courts, on some other issues, played the part. This does NOT win debating points ... it merely changes votes.
ANY conservative and ANY republican is nuts to vote Kerry. He is the enemy of everything we believe in as conservatives.
I didnt know if it would have an impact, but it may have given encouraging polling.
lol. ... that is a great point!
Hitlery would never get through the Pubbie-led Senate confirmation process. Payback is sweet!
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.