Well we saw the lack of a bounce from the nice guy approach

[genius]

Poll question: Well we saw the lack of a bounce from the nice guy approach

How about if we do something that wins? Anyone for the Democrats exposing Bush and his right-wing media for what they really are?

[sangh0]

1. Other

IMO, it doesn't take multiple threads to make one point.

[Tellurian]

27. Your Poll SUCKS! nt

[Walt Starr]

2. I won't answer your loaded question

If we had gone negative, we may have had a 15 point bounece, but it would have evaporated by about 25 points before the election.

[genius]

4. The truth. We just needed to tell the truth.People would have thanked us

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The TRUTH!!?? Why, why, the moderates wouldn't like that.

Tsk! Tsk! We have to be "practical", "pragmatic", "realistic", and all the other metaphors for lying.

[Pastiche423]

23. You left out - being Sensible Liberals

Isn't that the most important way to be?

It seems truth to power and basic Democratic ideology are no longer desired, wanted or needed by the dem leaders.

What seems to be of most import, is to follow the repug script, as the party has done for past several decades.

After all, it has brought us to where are a today. That's a good thing, right?

[candy331]

12. If negative means asking the tough questions of the Bush

administration then yes negative. The news media has propped Bush up and he is getting a free ride straight to the white house Nov 2. They hold the bully pulpit the largest percentage of the time and will do so until election so when Dems get a chance to strike a blow they have better better study where they want the punch to land because aiming at the feet will not do it.

[KurtNYC]

3. This lack of bounce thing is exactly what we expect them to pull

Only Gallop/CNN had that and they have been skewing their polls ever since Kerry went into a clear lead.

Why do you repeat baseless GOP talking points?

[genius]

5. Even Rasmussen shows we were more ahead before the convention

[Goldmund]

8. What do you mean "even" Rasmussen?

[genius]

11. The problem is whether we were more ahead before in the polls that

still have us ahead. When the gap goes down after a convention, that means the public didn't get something they wanted.

[Goldmund]

14. Rasmussen has a clear Republican bias

More importantly, his day-to-day polls are erratic and random. Yesterday it was 49-45, with 2 out of 3 nights of polling done after the speech (which is only the second time since Kerry's been the presumed nominee that either candidate got over 48%, and it was Kerry both times). Today it's 47-46. You do the math -- does that make sense? It seems like it was an especially anti-Kerry sample last night.

[diplomats]

19. Rasmussen is a daily tracking poll

They've never shown any big bounce. Even when Kerry was ahead after he clinched the nomination, Rasmussen showed the race even. Tracking polls aren't a good indicator this far ahead of an election.

[funkybutt]

18. according to electoral-vote.com...

Louisiana has lost more than 10 percentage points to Bush over the last month. I dont pay a ton of attn to these polls but Kerry pulled his ads from LA a couple of weeks ago, while Bush's attack ads are still running, our state has gone from pink to red. :(

[Must_B_Free]

6. Repeating a lie does not make it true

The no-bounce meme is a defensive fabrication of corporate media.

[diplomats]

7. I'm not ready to agree with the premise

We need to wait for more polls to come out. It's too early to make any judgments.

[LSU_Subversive]

10. Bullshit. There was a sizable bounce.

You've been listening to the pundits a little too much.

[genius]

13. Your site doesn't show any poll numbers. Though we need to protest RNC

[diplomats]

25. It takes time to get a real indication of the convention's effects

The Newsweek and CNN polls were done before that, and Rasmussen is a daily tracking poll (this far ahead of the election, that kind of poll is suspect).

Wait till the ABC poll comes out tonight.

[ClintonTyree]

15. What the hell.................

polls have you been looking at?

[LTR]

16. They should use humor

Nothing resonates with the masses like lightheartedness. It will show Kerry to be a regular guy who can connect, and it would also work as a subtle put-down of the chimp.

Kerry has already used this approach at times, including the remark in my sig.

[genius]

20. Good point. The public will start repeating the humor.

[genius]

17. We saw the nice guy approach when Randell convinced Gore to concede

WE saw the nice guy approach when we let Rove get away with frightening the vote counters. Letting people get away with bad things doesn't make us more moral. It makes us as immoral as the people who are doing bad things with our implicit acquiescence. Go watch F9/11 again. We look much worse than the Republicans by refusing to stand up for democracy.

[kaitykaity]

21. I won't answer your loaded question either.

Third option: A positive vision beats out attacks EVERY TIME!!!

[AndyTiedye]

22. It Doesn't Matter If We're Nice or Not - THEY OWN THE NEWS

So whether we are nasty or nice,
whatever we do or don't do,
say or don't say
will be spun to make Bush* look good and Kerry look bad.

[genius]

26. Then we have to make our own news

The Democratic Convention was our best shot and we blew it. Now we need to get the word out and those ads out that will portray what kind of leader Bush really is. I've found that when I tell people the truth, I get them to back away from Bush. It works every time with thinking people.

[Snoggera]

32. Democrats did not blow it

at the convention. Did you even listen to the speeches? This was not meant to be a bush* bashing bazaar, it was meant to get out the positive messages regarding where the democratic leadership will take this party. Many speakers, and I mean MANY spoke out against the current administration policies.

The only people at risk of "blowing it" are those who repeat GOP lies and propaganda because they disagree with some platforms of the democratic party.

The truth was told many times over a 4 day period. It was refreshing to hear.

[genius]

38. Not one mention of our loss of freedoms in Clinton's speech

If you listened to him, Bush did not react to 9/11 with USA-PATRIOT. Clinton's speech was on a par with Mark Antony's but it was meant for middle to low income Republicans - not for those dissappoinged with their loss of liberties.

Bush flat out lied. There is proof. He also committed treason. There is proof of that too. Although one would have to be diplomatic, they could have presented the facts about Bush and his method of operation. Kucinich refused to hold the line. So did Sharpton. I'm proud of them. But their speeches were not broadcast in prime time where I'm from.

[Snoggera]

40. Clinton's speech may be read

at this link:

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125919&ct=158734

snippet:

They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

--------because he didn't specifically call * a lying sack of shit, and use a 9/11 correlation with the Patriot Act, then it was a speech for Republicans? I think you need to read the text.

[blm]

36. Yet you absorb and promote their LIE here at DU.

Strange disconnect, genius.

Believe the huge crowds and most polls showing Kerry well ahead, or believe the few mediawhore polls claiming the opposite?

[genius]

39. It's important that, at DU,we promote winning strategies, like the truth

If it is so important to hide the truth about Bush to please the pollsters, then you better look at the polls the pollsters you are trying to please are conducting. If we tell the truth, the public will be angry and furious with Bush and the polls can't help but reflect it - even if it's in a muted format.

[sangh0]

41. So then why do you repeat the media's lies?

If you had any concern for the truth, you wouldn't be repeating the media's lies (ie "No bounce")

Funny how your "concerns" mirror the RNC's propoganda

[genius]

44. Why do you? I'm promoting a winning strategy.

[sangh0]

48. Why do you repea the media's lies about "no bounce"?

And why won't you produce any evidence to support your claim that there's "no bounce"?

[enki23]

24. sounds like you bought that one sink, line, and hooker

seriously now, every poll BUT the gallup poll shows a moderate-to-sizeable bounce. mostly moderate. just because the mainstream media has done its damndest to push that poll over the rest doesn't mean you need to be so credulous as to believe that's the only story.

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. We can't tell the truth! We have to be nice, just like we were in 2002

Moderation works beautifully. If it weren't for our wise leaders in the DLC, we never would have retaken Congress, and those darned Republicans, nice wonderful folks though they are, would still be in charge of everything.

/end DLC Pollyanna mode

[ieoeja]

29. Other

I think the lack of bounce is less due to dampening down the anger hurt than to the televised medium's use of Republican commentators. In the past the conventions were pretty much televised, week long campaign advertisements.

The advantage in the format used this year actually goes to the opposition. They get to talk over and rebut the convention speeches. The speaker, on the other hand, has no opportunity to refute anything said by the commentators. Presumably Democrats will be given the same opportunity to preside over the broadcast of the RNC giving the Democratic position more quality air time than the convention speakers.

[tom_paine]

30. Funny I asked the SAME question, but got trounced 61-39% against

Maybe Karl Rove is right. The identical question asked two different ways gets two wildly different results.

YES! We should begin fighting back.

[blm]

31. So now you're BUYING the crap they're selling? That's brilliant of you.

Why such hysterics over BLATANT lies? Those polls are showing deliberate manipulation of who is SELECTED for polling and YOU decide to cast your lot with the most conservative of the polls?

Guess most of the polls showing Kerry well ahead are too POSITIVE for some people?

[William Bloode]

33. Poll question: Well we saw the lack of a bounce from the nice guy approach

How you figure? I guess you are buying into the right wing talking points. There are not enough left over votes to get a large bounce. Think about it, the polls average 50-53% Kerry and 44-46% * Out of ^'s 45% 40% is his solid base who will vote for him no matter what. The best Kerry can really be expected to do in this type of polarized environment is pick up 3-4% of *'s 45%.

Yes i agree time for the gloves to come off and spread some "constructive criticism" not just smears and attacks. But i feel the y have been starting on this bit by bit. This morning on CNN Kerry was none to nice.

The whole feel good thing is smart in my mind. I think most Americans are tired of living in fear and gloom. I never fell for the fear of terrorist's, simply because i grew up in the cold war when global nuclear holocaust was a daily thought on everyones mind. So a few dinky terrorist fail to scare me much.

[MallRat]

34. That assumes that you think there isn't a bounce.

I disagree.

And if you cite CNN/USA Today/Gallup as your source, do so at your own peril.

-MR

[soothsayer]

35. You drinkin the koolaid or something?

quit being brainwashed by the librul media

[KurtNYC]

37. The trick is to capitalize on swing voters dissatisfaction with *

and close the deal. ABB does not necessarily translate to 'support Kerry.' The convention had to focus on reasons to support Kerry. Further Bush bashing could have been counter productive.

It was all about swing voters my friend.

[genius]

42. And that is why we have to focus on getting them to really hate Bush.

Bush is so bad that it would be easy if we tried.

[Bake]

43. What convention did YOU watch?

At the one I watched, Jimmy Carter tore Bush several new assholes. Before Bushie could stop bleeding, Bill Clinton laid out the differences between the parties as simply and eloquently as it is possible to do. Al Sharpton devastated the pResident. John Kerry hammered the Boy King. There were plenty more examples, but these just spring to mind. And every single one of them told the truth.

Since then, Howard Dean has gone on TV and called them liars using the terra-alerts for pure political gain.

So what are you talking about?

Bake

[genius]

46. Clinton didn't mention the loss of our freedom at all. He spoke about

refunds and presented a strong economic argument for voting Democrat. It was a good speech but it could have been better. Even Kennedy was muted and gave the worst speech of his life (which would be a good speech for anyone else).

[Bake]

47. What about Carter? What about Kerry?

And the others? You single out Clinton's speech, but you ignore Jimmy Carter's elder-statesman/attack dog speech. Remember that one? "We cannot LEAD when our leaders MISLEAD." That's pretty sharp stuff. He just wasn't foaming at the mouth when he said it. I heard NUMEROUS speakers (add Wes Clark to the list too) slam Bush* for taking us to war on false pretenses.

We don't have to be rabid dogs to get our message across. You seem to favor the foaming-at-the-mouth approach.

As for the bounce, I think it's too soon to tell and I seriously doubt the Gallup results; I suspect there actually WAS/IS a bounce. If there is/was a smaller bounce than we'd hoped for, there are several conclusions to be drawn:

1. The networks didn't even broadcast most of the speeches. Not all Americans have cable.

2. The cable channels that DID air the convention were in attack mode.

3. The electorate is just different this year, with many voters already polarized and committed one way or the other. The undecideds are much fewer.

I sure didn't see any problem with the message I saw and heard.

Bake

[Ediacara]

45. once again "genius"

you're not living up to your name....