Swift boat LIES are NOT working.

[MoonRiver]

Among all respondents, 59% think he earned the medals; only 21% think he did not. Dems, 78 to 8 think he earned them; Indys 59 to 20 think he did. Interestingly, Repubs are split evenly on the issue. Looks like *'s base is fracturing on the issue. BRING IT ON. :D

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm

[underpants]

1. Funny Juan Williams was on NPR saying they were

See 54% had heard of or seen the ads and of those 44% though they were credible----------- that is 24% of the field total which is lower than the died-in-the-wool republicans.

[MoonRiver]

3. It will be really funny when bushistas wake up one day and realize

they've lost significant numbers of their base on this issue. I believe it will happen. I'm not so optimistic that these folks will vote Kerry, but I do think they'll sit out 2004.

[still_one]

2. Wait, wait, the mainstream press has been telling us this is hurting Kerry

Just like Kerry didn't get a convention bounce

They tell us negative ads always work

What are you saying about the mainstream media?

[MoonRiver]

4. Call me delusional I suppose!

Or maybe this hard head just can't be programmed right! Many besides Wolfie et al. have tried and failed. :D

[volosong]

5. WAKE UP FOLKS....

Negative ads always hurt. The question is only about the degree of damage,not its presence.

[zanana]

11. Negative ads always hurt someone...

When the attacks are as ludicrous as this, however, they BACKFIRE.John McCain was hurt by this stuff in the REPUBLICAN primary. Max Cleland was hurt by it in GEORGIA. This is a national election, affecting everyone, not just Republicans or people who live in a very conservative state. It won't work this time.

[quaoar]

6. People don't answer those poll questions honestly

As Carville once said, focus groups always say they want candidates to focus on the positive. That's what they think they are supposed to say to a pollster.

Negative ads do work. If they didn't, nobody would use them.

[MoonRiver]

7. I can give you a few personal anecdotes to counter that claim.

My husband, who until the Selection, was definitely more of an "independent" voter than I, seriously considered voting for *I when he ran against Clinton. But when poppy went so negative against Clinton it completely turned him off and he voted Clinton. Similarly, my formerly life-long Republican, parents have completely denounced the party and now vote a straight Democratic ticket every election. Part of their reasoning, the main part, has to do with the fundamentalist religious take-over of the party. But another issue, one which makes them furious every time they witness it, is the despicable smear campaigns these bastards pull on their enemies time after time. And you can imagine what my WW2 vet parents are thinking about *'s latest lying assault on THEIR candidate, John Kerry. Of course, this is an n of 3, but I hear simlar things from others.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. To be fair, these smear tactics are not necessaily Republican

Smearing one's opponent is a tactic and not part of an ideology. In the past, I've winced when a liberal candidate raises a guilt-by-association argument against his opponent. Even on this board, we often see somebody try to make the case that Bush is a Nazi because his grandfather, a Wall Street banker, lent money to Nazi Germany.

There are many Republicans who have had reputations for running clean campaigns. Even though we may disagree with them sharply, they are to be commended.

Clean campaigning is not something in which the Bushes believe. This is a wealthy family with no sense of noblesse oblige. The world's wealth is for them and those like them. Any one who stand in their way is an obstacle to be run over like a carcass in the road. Free and fair elections, the system on which this country prides itself, is of utility only if they yield the desired results and are to be subverted otherwise; they hold this to be true whether the election is held in Florida or Venezuela. Does anybody seriously think that Bush will allow an election in Iraq unless the deck is stacked in favor of his colonial puppets?

With most politicians, smear tactics is a distasteful and desperate measure. Any politician may use a smear as a last resort. With the Bushes, smear tactics are a matter of course and a sign of their contempt for democracy. They believe it is their place to rule and for others to submit to their rule. As far as they are concerned, those who challenge their world order are fighting with the forces of nature and need to be taught a hard lesson; such people, in the minds of the Bushes, deserve to have their good names ruined, whether that name is Anita Hill or John Kerry.

[MoonRiver]

14. It certainly is not limited to Repubs, but

they seem to use them significantly more and blatantly lie rather than simply bring up embarrassing facts their opponents would rather ignore. Also, the smears seem to be particularly ugly and are often directed at their opponents' family members, even young children. All this makes Repuke smear tactics much dirtier than what is typically seen from Dems, imho of course.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. True enough, Say What

Note that I draw a distinction between a desperate candidate resorting to a smear to save his political career and the Bushes doing as a matter of course. It is a dirtier brand of campaigning than we have seen from anybody, including such past luminaries of the dirty campaigning hall of shame such as Dick Nixon.

Interestingly, this is another area where Bush makes me miss Reagan. As much as I thought Reagan was a dolt and despised everything he stood for, he ran clean campaigns for office.

And you're right, it is standard fare for neocons and their apologists. Why do they feel that if the truth isn't good enough that they are privileged to make up their own? Why is Ann Coulter incapable of simply disagreeing with liberals (which would be all right with me), but has to call them traitors?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. In other words, when the data doesn't support your preconceptions

you throw out the data.

[dolstein]

8. Actually, they ARE working

Just look at the poll you cited. 20% of independents think he didn't earn his medals. How many thought that BEFORE the attack ads started running?

Besides, the fact that we are now debating whether or not Kerry earned his medals, instead of debating Bush's performance in office, is proof that the attacks are working. A reelection campaign should focus on the incumbent's performance in office, which in the case of Bush is pretty dismal. The Bush people have now succeeded in shifting the focus of the debate.

[MoonRiver]

9. The question wasn't asked before.

I would assume that at least 20% of so-called independents lean Repub anyway. Many people are probably just voting according to their candidate preference. I am actually surprised that only 20% are voting for the lies. Also look at how evenly split the Repub vote is. THAT is shocking.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. I agree, Say What

Mr. Dolstein's question assumes that 20% of those describing themselves as independents don't generally vote like a loyal Republicans. The fact is that many do, as do many registered Democrats. They associate liberalism (i.e., being a Democrat) with perfidy.

Those who believe that Kerry cheated to get his medals would believe any one who says that Kerry murdered his mother or causes cancer. The question is whether these attacks are persuading anybody.

Of course, getting the truth out is the best prophylactic. The Kerry camp is doing the right thing getting those who were there to speak out and set the record straight.

[MallRat]

13. Missing fact: 20% of undecideds are apparently repulsed by the ads.

I believe it was the same poll we're discussing here.

Among undecideds who saw the Swift Boat ads, 27% were less likely to vote for Kerry... and 20% were MORE likely to vote for Kerry.

Add to that the imperceptible disgust among a few percent of Bush's less hardcore supporters... this whole thing may be a wash. Bush will gain a few mindless independents, suppress others who might have voted for him because of the ugliness of this attack, and drive more independents from leaning Kerry to STRONGLY KERRY.

I like the way this tide has turned. Bush is getting caught in the undertow of his own slime.

-MR

[TheRovingGourmet]

18. The ads sure are working well, probably better than was

expected. There has been so much coverage of Kerry and Vietnam that I have not even heard what Michael Jackson is up to these days.

[Guaranteed]

24. 20% of independents (PLUS) are going to vote for Bush! nt

[jonnyblitz]

12. I saw a poll a few days back where it was working on vets .

I forget where I saw the poll on tv but a sizable percentage of vets went to Bush's side after this Swift Boat thing started..

[MissB]

20. Interestingly enough, Schneider had some numbers the other day

That would be Bill Schneider on CNN. I don't much like him, but...

He claimed that about 16% of Americans were veterans. (If we assume the same registered voter rate as the rest of the population, then about 12% of them would actually vote.)

Amongst veterans (men), Bush was leading Kerry 54 to 42 or something like that because of Kerry's military service. Amongst non-veterans, Kerry was leading Bush because of his military service, no matter if they were men or women, by about the same margins.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Huge margin of error on that poll

There was a poll that showed a 9 point swing among veterans, away from Kerry, but the numbers were so small, it had a high margin or error like 4 percent, which when you are dealing with two measures (pro Bush v. pro Kerry) yields almost an 8 point uncertainty in the swing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Subsample of a subsample of a sample

statistically insignificant.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Not surprised

Truth will win this time.

[AmerDem]

17. I agree with you 100%

:toast: