The US election
Posted by: Justin on 21 September 2004
Well,
It's now almost universally recognized over here that things are going very poorly in Iraq. Bits of even the Republigencia is starting to question the progress and the honesty of this president. Our National Intel. Counsel report is damning at best (and unspeakably pessimistic at worst) at the future of Iraq. AND, FINALLY, Kerry has started to unlace the gloves and go after Bush's war effort - the substance of which has gained traction at least among the punditry. Christ, Porter Goss, the man Bush tapped for the top CIA spot, said yesterday (or the day before) that Bush was not honest with us!!
AND YET, today's polls have Kerry down about 6 points nationwide and down as much in key battleground states such as Ohio and Iowa. New Jersey, a solid Democratic state for what must be eons is now neck and neck.
I cannot understand how things can be deteriorating so badly in Iraq, in the midst of a stalled economic recovery, while Bush continues to hold a nationwide six point lead.
I am growing dispondent.
Judd
ps. No disrespect to Ludders, but I though the other thread wassimply getting to long. Hopefully this new, shorter one will see some renewed action.
It's now almost universally recognized over here that things are going very poorly in Iraq. Bits of even the Republigencia is starting to question the progress and the honesty of this president. Our National Intel. Counsel report is damning at best (and unspeakably pessimistic at worst) at the future of Iraq. AND, FINALLY, Kerry has started to unlace the gloves and go after Bush's war effort - the substance of which has gained traction at least among the punditry. Christ, Porter Goss, the man Bush tapped for the top CIA spot, said yesterday (or the day before) that Bush was not honest with us!!
AND YET, today's polls have Kerry down about 6 points nationwide and down as much in key battleground states such as Ohio and Iowa. New Jersey, a solid Democratic state for what must be eons is now neck and neck.
I cannot understand how things can be deteriorating so badly in Iraq, in the midst of a stalled economic recovery, while Bush continues to hold a nationwide six point lead.
I am growing dispondent.
Judd
ps. No disrespect to Ludders, but I though the other thread wassimply getting to long. Hopefully this new, shorter one will see some renewed action.
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by JonR
Then IMO the November election is a fait accompli.
jon
jon
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by woody
If Bush wins, the increasingly isolationist and aggressive US may well start WWIII 
-- woody
-- woody
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by Simon Perry
quote:
If Bush wins, the increasingly isolationist and aggressive US may well start WWIII
With Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with him, intoxicated by the presidency. Meanwhile, the kidnapping and beheading of westeners and other nationals aligned to the USA spreads to other countries, from Sudan to Indonesia, from Malaysia to Morocco. And the War on Terror marches on.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by ErikL
Looking ahead to tonight's VP debate, I hope Edwards loses the cheesy used car salesman bit and comes out swinging. I want to hear the word "Halliburton" at least 10x. If not 20.
On another note, I'm pleased to hear that new voter registration numbers are smashing old records.
On another note, I'm pleased to hear that new voter registration numbers are smashing old records.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Amen to that, Ludwig. And it seems I was premature in writing off Kerry's chances. Hope is rising.
Tonight, you just know Cheney (who is dangerously smart) has to come out snarling like the attack dog he is. Edwards has to be on his toes - positive, but unafraid of the rottweiller. I hope his trial lawyer experience serves him well. If not, he's going to get chewed up and spat out.
Apart from Halliburton (which Cheney will be ready for), I want to see what they have to say about Paul Bremer's astonishing coments today about troop levels and general lack of post-war planning.
Amazing level of interest for a VP debate. Everything is pointing to a high turnout in November. My biggest fear is the Florida Factor - a reprise of last time's dirty tricks with some new ones thrown in.
If the result is close, expect a long, bitter battle fought by the armies of lawyers both campaigns have already put in place across the country (as has been widely reported over the past few days).
Regards,
Davie
Tonight, you just know Cheney (who is dangerously smart) has to come out snarling like the attack dog he is. Edwards has to be on his toes - positive, but unafraid of the rottweiller. I hope his trial lawyer experience serves him well. If not, he's going to get chewed up and spat out.
Apart from Halliburton (which Cheney will be ready for), I want to see what they have to say about Paul Bremer's astonishing coments today about troop levels and general lack of post-war planning.
Amazing level of interest for a VP debate. Everything is pointing to a high turnout in November. My biggest fear is the Florida Factor - a reprise of last time's dirty tricks with some new ones thrown in.
If the result is close, expect a long, bitter battle fought by the armies of lawyers both campaigns have already put in place across the country (as has been widely reported over the past few days).
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Joe Petrik
Ludwig,
Slightly unrelated to the thread's topic and now a few days old, but did you hear about the rather embarrassing gaffe at Fox News? Gee, almost makes me question their "legitimate" coverage of the presidential race.
Joe
Slightly unrelated to the thread's topic and now a few days old, but did you hear about the rather embarrassing gaffe at Fox News? Gee, almost makes me question their "legitimate" coverage of the presidential race.
Joe
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Joe Petrik
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by matthewr
He might also mention Rummy's bolt-from-the-blue bombshell that Saddam didn't support al-Qaeda as Cheney likes to tell people despite overhelming evidence to the contrary.
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by ErikL
Overall I hope Edwards counters Cheney with a "experience is one thing, wisdom is another" attitude.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Justin
I am very concerned about this debate. For one, I think it "matters". There doesn't seem to have been this much interest in a VP debate before. Two, I think Cheney is going to wipe the floor with Edwards.
As somebody said above, Cheney is hella smart - so much so that I don't think Edwards has a shot at winning this debate if he relies on "facts". He'll have to win rhetorically (or at least, not lose) based on his ability to rebut the Cheney responses. I think Cheney will effectively deflect all "attacks". Edwards can't win this debate with a sword. He's got to pick apart Cheney's armor with a screw-driver and a pair of wire-cutters.
Judd
As somebody said above, Cheney is hella smart - so much so that I don't think Edwards has a shot at winning this debate if he relies on "facts". He'll have to win rhetorically (or at least, not lose) based on his ability to rebut the Cheney responses. I think Cheney will effectively deflect all "attacks". Edwards can't win this debate with a sword. He's got to pick apart Cheney's armor with a screw-driver and a pair of wire-cutters.
Judd
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by ejl
quote:
Two, I think Cheney is going to wipe the floor with Edwards.
We'll see. Edwards didn't make his millions by losing all those court cases.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by ejl:quote:
Two, I think Cheney is going to wipe the floor with Edwards.
We'll see. Edwards didn't make his millions by losing all those court cases.
I hope you are right. But courtroom experience is overrated in this format. First, lawyers don't speak to juries from thier seats. Secondly, real court is not like an episode of Perry Mason. Just watch CourtTV. That sort of thing isn't going to carry the day here.
I SOOOO want Edwards to win, but i don't see it happening. in fact, i think tonight is going to be a disaster for the dems.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by ErikL
MSNBC's site is showing that 78% think Edwards beat Cheney- can this be correct?
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Polls for President then me old bean.
Posted on: 05 October 2004 by ejl
quote:
MSNBC's site is showing that 78% think Edwards beat Cheney- can this be correct?
I don't know, but I certainly thought Edwards looked stronger.
What was that thing Cheney said about the administration never having claimed that there was a connection between al-Qaida and Iraq???
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by matthewr
Crikey! US Election produces actual debate shcok! It sounds like a right old ding-dong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1320825,00.html
Matthew
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1320825,00.html
Matthew
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by ErikL
The instant polls are deeply divided on who's the winner this time. Some show 80% believe Cheney won, and some show 70% believe Edwards won. I guess that makes it a draw and also makes it clear the media habits of each party's supporters.
The highs (for the candidates):
-Edwards' opening line "Mr. Vice President, you still are not being straight with the American people".
-Edwards seemed like a compassionate, down-to-earth guy.
-Cheney seemed more articulate, bright, and more convincing on pure style (not content).
The lows:
-Edwards looked like a jittery dipshit schoolboy at times and wasn't as articulate as Cheney.
-Cheney seemed slightly uninterested, and certainly disconnected from domestic issues (and minorities).
-Cheney errantly giving out the URL for an anti-Bush website. Brilliant.
I also liked how within minutes of the conclusion Cheney's strongest blow was proven false- he'd met Edwards on two previous occassions.
The highs (for the candidates):
-Edwards' opening line "Mr. Vice President, you still are not being straight with the American people".
-Edwards seemed like a compassionate, down-to-earth guy.
-Cheney seemed more articulate, bright, and more convincing on pure style (not content).
The lows:
-Edwards looked like a jittery dipshit schoolboy at times and wasn't as articulate as Cheney.
-Cheney seemed slightly uninterested, and certainly disconnected from domestic issues (and minorities).
-Cheney errantly giving out the URL for an anti-Bush website. Brilliant.
I also liked how within minutes of the conclusion Cheney's strongest blow was proven false- he'd met Edwards on two previous occassions.
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by ErikL
Alex,
I didn't know until I landed upon the evil FOXNews website (looking for their instant poll) if you can believe it! So, it is being aired out in the media today.
I didn't know until I landed upon the evil FOXNews website (looking for their instant poll) if you can believe it! So, it is being aired out in the media today.
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by Justin
My honest opinion was that Cheney got the better of Edwards in this debate. Edwards seemed inarticulate and, for lack of a better word, "Bushesque", particularly in the beginning when it appeared that Edwards was going to stick to a script and repeat over and over again the party line.
In truth, I think Edwards improved on the domestic issues, while Cheney stayed clam, collected and focussed the entire night. Damn! Cheney is smart as Fuck, and it shows.
Having watched the debate I then turned to the political punditry in all the regular spots. The show I trust most is Chris Mathews' "Hardball" on MSNBC, in which his panel determined (rightly) last week that Kerry got the better of Bush. This included Joe Scarbourough, a staunch Bush ally.
Last night's analysis went clearly for Cheney, save some waffling from Ron Regan (of course). Even the liberal Mathews himself called Regan out on it "This was a clear Cheney win, and you know it".
I think that sort of talk summed up the punditry (outside the "spin room") among both the "political correspondent types" like Andria Mitchel of MSNBC (who are supposedly non-partison) and the editorial types like Scarbourough and Mickey Krouse (of slate). The overwhelming consensus in the hours after the debate was that Cheney had a decisive win.
I happen to agree with this.
But, the "popular polls" started to come in as well. And in the light of day (today, that is) here is what they look like:
MSNBC has Edwards by by 63% to 37%.
CBS News poll has Edwards up 41% to 28% among 178 "uncommitted" voters.
CNN News poll has Edwards up 64% to 36%.
Even Fox News poll has Edwards up 1% (how that is possible, I have no clue)
The only poll showing a Cheney win is ABC News poll, which has Cheney winning 43% to 35%
The ABC News poll, the only poll to show a Cheney win is also the only poll to include a piori a greater number of pubs them dems in the polling sample.
All of which is to say that I thought Cheney was a clear and decisive winner in last night's debate, but that at BEST, the American people are calling it a tie and, at worst for the Bush/Cheney ticket, the American people are calling it an Edwards win - and by some good margin.
In light of what I saw with my own eyes last night, I can only suggest the following explanation: That this may have more to do with where the electorate is going in these final weeks than whether or not the masses know how to read a debate. One answer is that despite a strong showing in the VP debate, the political tide is turning irreperably away from the Bush/Cheney ticket and towards Kerry/Edwards. That is - the political isssues are proving too great of a weight on the Bush/Cheney camp to permit them to be recognized for somethinig like a debate win.
If this trend continues (and of course, I think that it might) even a strong (or winning) effort by Bush in the upcoming debates will be more than beaten back by the political reality on the ground. Are we moving inextricably towards that moment when even when Bush/Cheney "win" they just can't win?
I hope so.
Judd
In truth, I think Edwards improved on the domestic issues, while Cheney stayed clam, collected and focussed the entire night. Damn! Cheney is smart as Fuck, and it shows.
Having watched the debate I then turned to the political punditry in all the regular spots. The show I trust most is Chris Mathews' "Hardball" on MSNBC, in which his panel determined (rightly) last week that Kerry got the better of Bush. This included Joe Scarbourough, a staunch Bush ally.
Last night's analysis went clearly for Cheney, save some waffling from Ron Regan (of course). Even the liberal Mathews himself called Regan out on it "This was a clear Cheney win, and you know it".
I think that sort of talk summed up the punditry (outside the "spin room") among both the "political correspondent types" like Andria Mitchel of MSNBC (who are supposedly non-partison) and the editorial types like Scarbourough and Mickey Krouse (of slate). The overwhelming consensus in the hours after the debate was that Cheney had a decisive win.
I happen to agree with this.
But, the "popular polls" started to come in as well. And in the light of day (today, that is) here is what they look like:
MSNBC has Edwards by by 63% to 37%.
CBS News poll has Edwards up 41% to 28% among 178 "uncommitted" voters.
CNN News poll has Edwards up 64% to 36%.
Even Fox News poll has Edwards up 1% (how that is possible, I have no clue)
The only poll showing a Cheney win is ABC News poll, which has Cheney winning 43% to 35%
The ABC News poll, the only poll to show a Cheney win is also the only poll to include a piori a greater number of pubs them dems in the polling sample.
quote:
Dick Cheney prevailed in the vice presidential debate with help from a more Republican audience — and more support from his ticket's side than John Edwards got from his.
Among registered voters who watched the debate, 43 percent said Cheney won, 35 percent called Edwards the winner and 19 percent called it a tie. One factor is that more Republicans tuned in — 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents.
All of which is to say that I thought Cheney was a clear and decisive winner in last night's debate, but that at BEST, the American people are calling it a tie and, at worst for the Bush/Cheney ticket, the American people are calling it an Edwards win - and by some good margin.
In light of what I saw with my own eyes last night, I can only suggest the following explanation: That this may have more to do with where the electorate is going in these final weeks than whether or not the masses know how to read a debate. One answer is that despite a strong showing in the VP debate, the political tide is turning irreperably away from the Bush/Cheney ticket and towards Kerry/Edwards. That is - the political isssues are proving too great of a weight on the Bush/Cheney camp to permit them to be recognized for somethinig like a debate win.
If this trend continues (and of course, I think that it might) even a strong (or winning) effort by Bush in the upcoming debates will be more than beaten back by the political reality on the ground. Are we moving inextricably towards that moment when even when Bush/Cheney "win" they just can't win?
I hope so.
Judd
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by ErikL
Judd,
At 8:30 AM PST the FOXNews instant poll (online) had Cheney at 81%. Are we talking about the same poll?
Following today's "news" on no WMD and no link b/n Saddam and Zarqawi the evening news' take on things may be very interesting tonight.
At 8:30 AM PST the FOXNews instant poll (online) had Cheney at 81%. Are we talking about the same poll?
Following today's "news" on no WMD and no link b/n Saddam and Zarqawi the evening news' take on things may be very interesting tonight.
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by AlexG:
Judd
Did you get a chance to go to the debate last night?
ag
I entered the lottery, but did not win. The school got 60 ut of 2000 tickets for the event. That wasn't too bad, actually. But I didn't win. I could have gone as a volanteer, but they filled up pretty fast.
I watched Chris Mathewss' Hradball show live, though. That was cool.
Judd
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Judd,
At 8:30 AM PST the FOXNews instant poll (online) had Cheney at 81%. Are we talking about the same poll?
Following today's "news" on no WMD and no link b/n Saddam and Zarqawi the evening news' take on things may be very interesting tonight.
Right now Foxnews has Edwards up by 1%. Not sure what poll you are looking at. They had him up last night as well.
Judd
Posted on: 06 October 2004 by Justin
oops, now it is gone. Boy, they turned that over fast.
Judd
Judd
Posted on: 07 October 2004 by ejl
Fresh Newspeak from the Ministry of Prpoganda
Cheney: Absence of Iraqi Arms program proves war was justified.
Cheney: Absence of Iraqi Arms program proves war was justified.
Posted on: 07 October 2004 by Bhoyo
I'm surprised that anyone could think Cheney "won" the debate.
I can understand a partisan Republican deluding him- or herself that way. And I can just about see how someone would react emotionally to the spectacle - thinking Cheney was solid, wise, aggressive, experienced and tough, or that Edwards was too slick, earnest and young.
However, intellectually, it was no contest. Cheney huffed and puffed; could barely look up or straight at the camera; was at times inarticulate; could not follow a line of argument; quoted spurious statistics that were obviously half-answers at best, was evasive, shifty and dishonest. He also got his facts wrong, most memorably on the factcheck.com website and on never having met Edwards before.
Edwards, by contrast, was properly prepared, articulate, on message, relentless on the awful record of the administration and of Cheney himself. There were a couple of missteps, but nothing like Cheney's flat-out dreadful performance.
However, that's been the story of the entire campaign thus far: a rational plan for American doemstic and foreign policy versus bluster and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, the latter often wins.
Regards,
Davie
I can understand a partisan Republican deluding him- or herself that way. And I can just about see how someone would react emotionally to the spectacle - thinking Cheney was solid, wise, aggressive, experienced and tough, or that Edwards was too slick, earnest and young.
However, intellectually, it was no contest. Cheney huffed and puffed; could barely look up or straight at the camera; was at times inarticulate; could not follow a line of argument; quoted spurious statistics that were obviously half-answers at best, was evasive, shifty and dishonest. He also got his facts wrong, most memorably on the factcheck.com website and on never having met Edwards before.
Edwards, by contrast, was properly prepared, articulate, on message, relentless on the awful record of the administration and of Cheney himself. There were a couple of missteps, but nothing like Cheney's flat-out dreadful performance.
However, that's been the story of the entire campaign thus far: a rational plan for American doemstic and foreign policy versus bluster and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, the latter often wins.
Regards,
Davie