Kerry's long slide in polls. A theory: what's happened & what can be done.

[skip fox]

Kerry's been off balance from the first. That was Karl's plan. By the time his campaign reacts to
one charge, a different picture of Kerry is being put forward by or under the direction of the
administration:

1.) most liberal senator
2.) flip-flopper
3.) will not support troops
4.) war record not earned
5.) actually a coward who sought the succor of 3 purple hearts
6.) traitor to the troops left behind with his perjurious testimony to Congress
7.) unfit to command


That brings us up to last night. What's #8? But to know that, you have to know the game plan, the total picture they
are painting of Kerry: He coldly courted power and political viability with every decision of his calculated life. He loves
himself more than the country which he has already sold out a dozen time. Electing him would be a disaster of the
first order. He should thank his stars that the American public doesn't lynch him, for crying out loud. (Like they say,
these fellows knowhow to play hardball.)

Now . . . what's #8? (So we might get back in the game.)

(I.e., these individual pictures are leading to a composite which will be sprung on us at the end of the campaign. If Kerry can figure out what that composite will be, he can anticipate their next move and react accordingly, preemptively, and surely.)

[David Zephyr]

1. Kerry Has Not Had a "Long Slide in the Polls"

I disagree.

[demwing]

3. I agree, what slide?

no slide, neither long nor short...

[sangh0]

4. It's in all of the GOP's talking point memos

Didn't you get the memo?

Someone did

[Nicholas_J]

50. Yes.

You have one polls which has BUsh in double digits over Kerry, but the same thing occured in polls for Kerry after the Democratic convention. One poll gave him double digit leads, others gave him a few point. Bush hsd gotten about a 4 point boost from the conventions, Kerry got about a three point boost after hiws, both rather modest bumps from the conventions, nothing like the 15 percent everyone was predicting for both. It took about two to three weeks for the poolls after the Democratic convention occured for them to settle back into a regular pattern, the sam is likely here, as problems in Iraq keep increasingt, and the economay stays basically stagnant.

[Democat]

18. How can you possibly say Kerry hasn't slid in the polls?

We do not help ourselves by believing nothing except what backs up our already existing positions.

Kerry is taking a beating. He can still win, but at least take a look at what's going on in the real world.

[sangh0]

22. Because Kerry has risen in the polls.

and the poll saying that Bush* went up 11 points was run by a man who used to be a commentator on FOX NEWS.

[Democat]

23. If three more polls come out with Bush up, will they all be fixed?

How about ten more polls?

I swear this is a replay of 2002. The "Secret Democratic Plan" and the fixed polls are all in play again this year. :)

[sangh0]

25. I guess you dont have any facts, so you resort to speculation

Since even you admit that there's a difference between seeing one polls results, and seeing several polls, then why do you believe one poll that was run by a former FOX NEWS commentator?

[Democat]

30. I hope that poll is bad like the bogus California poll, but...

The reality is that Kerry's numbers have not been doing great since the Democratic convention in most polls I've seen.

Take a look at a few different polls and the trend is not in Kerry's favor.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug26.html

http://electoral-vote.com/

[TruthIsAll]

32. You want trends? I've got them all right here. ALL of them.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

[sangh0]

33. Democat is "cherry picking" polls

The facts show that Kerry has gone from single digits to tied with Bush* in less than a year.

[skip fox]

36. How 'bout this question? Could he do better? If he could, should he?

Which leads inevitably to "How?"

Etc.

(Look, no polls!)

[sangh0]

38. Kerry is beating Bush* according to one poll dated 9/3

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep03p.html

and since it's just one poll, I'm sure you'll beleive it.

[skip fox]

44. Therefore the campaign is NOT re-adjusting? There wasn't an angry Kerry

speech last night? Or, if there was, it was part of a calm and consistently developed strategy?

Listen, I think we have a real meeting ground as I've noted elsewhere. If he's doing fine, by your account, then an adjustment could be an over-reaction and that could be problematic. That's a viable argument. At least that argment meets mine head on and makes a solidly useful point. Something the campaign should consider before changing course (if, of course, they were ever dreaming of it).

I, too, and trying to provide fodder for their consideration.

See? We're after the same thing, after all.

(Notice I've not mentioned polls recently except to say I've not mentioned them?)

[Democat]

46. We are all after the same thing - Democratic Victory 2004 and beyond!

We may not agree on whether Kerry's strategy is the best, but with the exception of some of our very new "friends", we are all working toward the same goal. :)

[sangh0]

49. It is a part of a developed strategy

and the Kerry campaign had even announced that they were going to get more aggressive. Where were you?

Listen, I think we have a real meeting ground as I've noted elsewhere. If he's doing fine, by your account, then an adjustment could be an over-reaction and that could be problematic. That's a viable argument. At least that argment meets mine head on and makes a solidly useful point. Something the campaign should consider before changing course (if, of course, they were ever dreaming of it).

No, *YOU* listen. Things could ALWAYS be better, but THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. For some odd reason, you felt the need to use the republicans fictions, and when I pressed you on it, you refused to let them go, AND you shucked and jived in order to avoid admitting your error.

I'm sorry, but this does not instill a desire to have a discussion with you. If you had acknowledged your mistake from the start, or at least not be so insistent that you made no mistake, I could chalk it up to a simple mistake. But your determined adherence to the fiction makes me wonder if we could have a reasonable discussion, not because your dishonest, but because I've seen no sign that you will hear the opposing sides arguments.

I've heard the "constructive criticism" argument, but I know what "constructive" means, and it has nothing to do with fictions.

[Democat]

37. Your polls show an overall Kerry slide since July, right?

Am I missing something?

[sangh0]

39. This poll shows Kerry leading, dated 9/3

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep03p.html

Since you believe single polls, you MUST believe that Kerry is ahead, right?

Or do you only believe single polls if they're produced by former employees of FOx News?

[Democat]

47. I looked at the trend in the polls that he posted a link to and...

It didn't look good to me since July. Am I looking at it wrong?

I believe that it is possible that the new poll is a fraud. However, the trend is not in Kerry's favor right now so it's also possible we are about to see some very bad numbers.

Hopefully you are right and I'm wrong, that would make me very happy!

[skip fox]

51. And temperance is a virtue in some quarters! There's where I would

keep company.

[sangh0]

54. Then practice temperance, yourself

You are being very intolerant of someone just because he disagrees with you. You might also want to back your assertions up with some facts in the future.

And remember, if someone asks you for evidence, it's not a sign of intolerance.

[skip fox]

56. You're still not discussing the issue.

And I guess nothing can make you see that.

Why don't you just say Kerry is doing fine. Any adjustment by his staff in light of bad polling or mis-interpretation of the polls could be harmful to the campaign.

Then you'd be in the ball-park.

Listen, I'm not quitting the debate cause I'm quitting on you or think I've lost. Simply far past time for me to leave the office.

I keep thinking f ways to help. I'm not in this to get into futile squabbles. Have the last word. Long may it last you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x71309

This (above) is in the same spirit I put forward my conception of what was happening to Kerry. If you can't take it in that spirit, then it's certainly not my loss.

[sangh0]

59. You still haven't acknowledged your mistake

and I guess nothing could make you see that.

Why don't you just say Kerry is doing fine

Kerry is doing fine. As my link shows, Kerry is ahead in the Electoral College. In addition, he's raising record breaking money, and his numbers in a few swing states have risen in the last two weeks IN SPITE OF the SBVT ads and the RNC convention.

Any adjustment by his staff in light of bad polling or mis-interpretation of the polls could be harmful to the campaign.

Kerry is about to recieve $75 million. I have a hunch he might spend some of it on new staffers. I have a hunch you'll call that a "re-adjustment"

I keep thinking f ways to help

Then I suggest you avoid misinformation and disinformation.

[sangh0]

52. If you cherry pick the polls

anyone can limit a date range so the trends look bad.

And it is possible that Kerry will go down in the polls. If they don't, it would probably be the 1st time in history. However, I've yet to see any FACT that indicates his numbers are actually going down.

[Julien Sorel]

34. What "secret Democratic plan?"

I'd like to see details, references, someone who said such a plan exists. Not that I don't believe you, of course.

[Democat]

45. I just tried to do a search so I could post links but can't find 2002

During the 2002 election a number of Democrats (and some DUers too) were very optimistic.

There were suggestions that we should not stress on the polls or look at the obvious problems with the campaign, because it was all part of the grand Democratic strategy. We should not worry, because we would pull it out in the end with this "strategy" that the Democrats were working on.

At that time, it was what I called "Secret Democratic Plan" because it was so obviously not going to happen. There was no strategy and we lost because we refused to fight.

If anyone knows how to search posts from 2002, I'll be happy to look for some links for you. You might be surprised to see how many people were sure we were doing fine in 2002.

[Julien Sorel]

58. Anyone who said this is as deluded as

the people who are now blaming Kerry for every flaw under the sun. The Democrats knew going in to 2002 that it was a hostile battleground; if they were talking about "secret plans" and the like, it was cheerleading and whistling past the graveyard.

I started a thread a few days ago looking at the 2002 election. I sure wish more people who claim, almost every day, that 2002 was an example of spineless Democratic leadership letting the party down had popped into that thread and pointed out where the "in your face" approach would have made a positive difference in a single race. Perhaps it's just so obvious that no one wanted to bother.

[Larkspur]

2. I'm waiting from them to say...

"Kerry was windsurfing when the Towers fell and courageous President Bush was leading out country in time of crisis." :eyes:

And then there is the old "Kerry is French looking. Maybe that is why he will sellout US foreign policy to Old Europe in order to bring home the troops."

[skip fox]

7. Yes, these are definately part of the picture as well. Thanks.

It's important to see how Rove is putting all these pieces together.

It's like trying to read the mind of an evil artist.

[sangh0]

5. That poll was run by a commentator for FOX NEWS. Why believe it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x738912

[Vincardog]

9. The spin doctors

How can the Bu$hco guys get away with it? I just listened to what a strong leader the shrub will be against threats and what a horror Kerry would be. Where was the strong leadership before 9/11? Where was the decisive action when he had a report warning of the plan to use Airplanes as weapons and attack symbols of US influence inside the US? Oh yeah on vacation in Crawford for a month then a little visit to bro Jeb out of the danger zone in FL. Would reality please have any thing to do with the GOP.

[skip fox]

6. What about the general argument, rather than taking off on an adjective?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=799906&mesg_id=799906

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

(According to Time, Bush is into a double-digit lead. But that's not the point. The point is to counteract a slide, no matter how precipitous.)

[sangh0]

13. What argument?

All I see is a statement that isn't true. Kerry has experienced a long RISE, not a long drop, in the polls.

[WI_DEM]

8. from this moment on what Kerry has to do is what he did last night

in Springfield. He fought back. He called AWOL a liar and he threw it in Cheney's face that he had 5 deferments. He needs to talk about Iraq and job losses and health care. He has to fight. if he does that he will win back lost ground.

[skip fox]

10. Fine. That's a viable strategy.

Ignore the picture. Go for the issue. Show how the picture is distorted, slam the admin. on it briefly, then go on the offensive.

But it's important to know what you're enemies are up to so that you can make the right choice (perhaps this one) when you need to.

[sangh0]

15. Ignore what picture?

Your argument is based on the fiction that Kerry's #'s have gone down, when they've gone up nearly constantly and steadily.

[skip fox]

16. Not based on it. Think. I could just have well started from

Why isn't Kerry doing better than he is in the polls, given the fact the economy is depressed, we're in a war which we went to for no discernable purpose and which shows easy or imediate end in sight, the administration has been caught "priming" the intelligence, writing energy policy with "interested" parties, . . . etc.

See?

I'm simply positing that he's been kept off balance and trying to figure how to help correct. But, hey, if there's no problem, maybe his campaign strategy is fine without new ideas. . . . You think?

[sangh0]

17. Now I see your mistake

You're just going to assume as fact that Kerry should be doing better. After all, you started out claiming that Kerry was "sliding". Now that I've shown it's not true, you're going to try "Kerry should be doing better"

How about something to support your claims so we can see if you right BEFORE we debate what to do about an imaginary problem.

I'm positing that he's been kept off balance and trying to figure how to help correct.

Are you positing that I accept your assumption without debate, because that ain't gonna happen.

I'm positing that he's been kept off balance and trying to figure how to help correct. But, hey, if there' no problem, may his campaign stategy is fine without new ideas. . . . You think?

I think saying that "Kerry is sinking" when he's not is an AWFUL idea and very sophistic of you to suggest that whatever you come up with will be helpful. It's also dishonest for you to imply that Kerry has no "new ideas", particularly after the repukes have said the same exact thing. Also, you shouldn't suggest that you're going to "fix" a problem BEFORE you've even shown that the problem exists.

[skip fox]

31. Geez. Give literacy a chance.

I've conceded nothing, except that there is a need for a re-adjustment (which, fortunately, the Kerry camp is in the process of).

Why not argue the main point. That Kerry is NOT off balance, he will will if he "stays the course." Etc. (I even gave a link to a poll that claims double-digit slippage. If you want to arge polls, you'll get no further response from me. I know when I'm speaking to someone who's busy shouting.)

[sangh0]

35. WHo said you conceded anything?

You just change from "Kerry's long slide in the polls" to "Kerry should be doing better" to "Kerry's slide, IF ANY..." without any comment.

Why not argue the main point. That Kerry is NOT off balance

Gee, I guess you dozed off for that part, but all of my posts have disputed your fiction that Kerry's numbers are going down.

And other posters have asked the same thing in this thread, but you've ignored them also.

[skip fox]

41. Once again. Could Kerry do better? If "no" we have a real point of

contention. If "yes," then we have a discussion, which would lead us, inevitably, to the question "How might he do better." THAT's what I'm interested in, not winning points so my debating caoch might be proud.

If you don't think he can do better you may be right or wrong. But his campaign staff seems to be re-adjusting. You're argument might be that IF they are re-adjusting, then they may endanger the solid progress that they've made to date. That's a viable argument. I think it's wrong, but it's at least contending with the main issue rather than the ancillary ones.

My thrust here is that I hope they adjust (if, again, they are adjusting) correctly, and I am trying to find a context in which to do that.

[sangh0]

42. Once again, what slide?

You keep saying that the slide isn't important, yet it seems important enough that you refuse to let it go.

If "yes," then we have a discussion, which would lead us, inevitably, to the question "How might he do better." THAT's what I'm interested in, not winning points so my debating caoch might be proud.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in having a discussion about Kerry's mistakes if you won't acknowledge your own mistakes.

But his campaign staff seems to be re-adjusting

No, it's not. It's expanding. Kerry is about to get $75 million. But my guess is it would be futile to ask you to back up your claims of "re-adjusting" with a fact or two.

After all, the "re-adjustment" was just another repuke lie you believed, like the lie about the polls.

[skip fox]

48. No, my major mistake is, as so often, assuming

the good will and reasoned response of others.

Intemperance might be seen as a virtue in some quarters, but to me it's just downright tiresome.

[sangh0]

53. Your major mistake was not acknowledging your major mistake

Kerry's numbers are not sliding.

[Vincardog]

12. What Kerry did last night

Exactly so. John needs to call a $pade a $pade. Bush and the NeoCons have placed all taxes on income and off wealth. They have savaged our environment and social culture. John needs to start telling the truth about their policies and the terrible effects we have suffered.

[skip fox]

14. I like the "I'll be the president that tells the truth" stance very damned

much.

There's no counter except, "Look at Clinton!" and Rove is too smart to think that will carry any water in light of such massive disseminations as WMD's in Iraq and Iraqi-al-Quaeda ties.

It's strong, short, and sweet. And carries a punch!

[74dodgedart]

11. Keep the faith..Vote

[many a good man]

19. Must Destroy Credibility

>>>1.) most liberal senator
* tell 'em what "liberal" means nowadays! Most folks will agree its closer to what they want for their future.

>>>2.) flip-flopper
* You mean "actually I voted FOR it BEFORE I voted AGAINST it..." Tell people what you wanted that bill to look like and why. Explain to the people that this is how their government works and hold it up as an example of how the liars distort his votes on every other issue.

>>>3.) will not support troops
* A direct attack on Kerry's honor. This gives him all the excuse he needs to attack Bush*s character

>>>4.) war record not earned
* Why do they continue to insist on impugning veterans of all conflicts with the charge that the military award system is rigged?

>>>5.) actually a coward who sought the succor of 3 purple hearts
* And what about the fortunate son's war record? Explain that ribbon on your chest in this photo. What's the difference between being awarded a questionable purple heart in the midst of combat compared to wearing one you never earned.

>>>6.) traitor to the troops left behind with his perjurious testimony to Congress
* Stand by the spirit of your testimony. 50,000 Americans were dying. Two-thirds of Americans agree it was a huge mistake.

>>>7.) unfit to command
* One of the two of us is definitely unfit. Hmmmmm? I wonder which one it could be....?

#8: another desperation panic attack smear...
* Does America really want these guys around for another poisonous four years?

[FrenchieCat]

20. I sent Bill Press this letter yesterday.....

If you read the whole thing, I think you will get my general drift....

Dear Bill Press,

The reason why I am corresponding with you today is because I just finished watching this week's Republican National Convention, and I heard you a day or so ago on KGO radio doing a segment with Ron Owens (in the Bay Area...done by telephone, I presume).

You may not remember me, but I wrote you a letter shortly after the primaries when you were pushing John McCain as a great choice to be John Kerry's Vice President. Do you remember this column you wrote? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37550
In my letter to you at the time, I commented on how I believed you were wrong on your assessment of John McCain. But more importantly, I included my short essay about who John Kerry should select based on clear indications of what was obviously coming down the RNC pipeline. I realize that the VP deal is now done, but this particular essay also provided an outline on how the RNC would approach this election.

I am again including the essay that I wrote back in mid-March, and I hope you read it closely this time (if you didn't the last time). Why Am I making such a request? Well, you see Mr. Press, I just can't understand how journalists/authors such as yourself, who make the big bucks, seem to have the political instinct of dinosaurs. The myopic view that many, many Democrats operatives and party leaders have as to what it takes to win an election has gotten down right scary. I don't want you to take this as a personal slam, but rather as a hint that you and others may be better off listening to the "little" people like me. I urge you to keep my name and email address, and please feel free to contact me whenever you require some insightful political feedback.

In addition to my essay, I am providing you a link to a very interesting website that you may or may not be familiar with. The particular story that I want to bring to your attention is one that deals with how polls are used by the media in manipulating public opinion. I have known this for quite some time, and saw it done during the primaries. This site is even more insightful than I have ever been politically wise. Please know that I just want to help in anyway I can bring "fresh" insight to those most interest and can best use it.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i24inevitable.htm Interesting story on how polls are used to manipulate Public Op.
I do swear by this site...... http://www.moderateindependent.com
Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
---------------------------------
Democrats want to win this one.
I dare not opine as to what will happen once Kerry is President....
My only obsession, as a Democrat, for the time being, is actually winning.....
Everything else after is just pure bonus.

My reasoning and my case for Wes Clark as VP follows that path..... in addition to Clark offering the broadest and most guaranteed geographical strategy (south, southwest, west--and everywhere else for that matter) combined with stellar fundraising skills and energetic charisma, plus attracting the male demographics that Kerry is lagging with, such as the Nascar Dadsand veterans who will respect a General more that Yale Skull and Boners (Bush/Kerry). The obvious appeal of a self made man of humble origins and non-partisan offering on the ticket would also increase interest from various uncommitted voting blocks, ....but the main fact is that

With Clark as Veep on the ticket, the Democrats gain a Pit Bull attacker and the Democratic Ticket becomes bulletproof in reference to running against an Incumbent WARTIME President (as Bush, Republicans and the media is calling Bush). The fact that the Republicans' convention will be in New York right before the 9/11 anniversary is not lost on us....is it?

Bush's "steady leadership theme" has already begun....and will continue like a steady drum roll that gets louder and louder.

Even as Republicans were floating rumors that Bush might replace Cheney with Guliani or Colin Powell...and although those rumors for the moment are said to be off the table (but I would caution to never say never)...why do you think these are the names being floated about?....a former Vet/4 star General/SOS and a "proclaimed" New York Hero of 9/11?...both with reasonable bipartisan appeal (some certainly will disagree with my description...but we are talking about middle America here).

Republicans are already Questioning Kerry's votes cast in reference to weapons programs and his actions shortly after Vietnam. There is also an old book that Kerry penned which has a picture on the cover showing Kerry with an upside down American Flag. (Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but If I know about it..and if I have seen this cover, then I know that Karl Roves knows about it too...and I am sure they are saving it, and will bring it out much closer to the actual vote, so that there will not be adequate time to explain it away....we must be prepared for it at all cost....don't blame me for bringing it up...it's out there, trust me. If it's a hoax, then give me the evidence of that...that would settle that dread that I have in the back of my head). It this is real, it will be very difficult to explain this picture away to Middle America without Clark on the ticket (who has said that he would not encourage, but he would support a ban on flag desecration. Regardless of how distasteful this may sound to Democrats.....it could be a very useful stance....Kerry is on record of being against it...the mix is a good thing).

Also, for those who believe that Clark's experience are a needless duplication of Kerry's....this is not an accurate perception. It's simplistic, but not factual. Kerry's experience in reference to Foreign Relations and National Security as a Senator does not in any way mirror what Clark did as head of Southern Command and Allied Supreme Commander of NATO. The fact Kerry was a veteran is a good thing, but nearly not enough of a good thing.

The National Security (which is not another label for Foreign policy...as is it a different skill set) knowledge that Clark has is executive in nature and he is considered an expert by most (even Republicans know this). John Kerry is currently polling lowest in that area and Clark would shore it up. Add the deep and expansive Foreign negotiating experience that Clark has, such as the Dayton Peace Accords for Bosnia, and the managing and sustaining of the 19 nations coalition together during Kosovo. This is not experience that Kerry shares. Further, running an entire war and not losing a single American life is not what Kerry experience represents. The experience of these two war heroes, however, compliments the entire array of legislative/executive qualities of what may be the Presidential Election theme of 2004. There are not holes left in the ticket.

Take that theme away from Bush, and what is there left?

Gay Marriage and a proposed amendment? I also think that this issue would be easier for Democrats to deflect with two macho war Veterans heroes running on one ticket. The country would be made to understand, with these two voices speaking the same message....that the real issue is Human Rights and the need to recognize the issue as such, and not to temper with the constitution by adding discrimination to it. Coming from two patriots, discussion of the constitution and what it should represent, as opposed to what the Republicans want to turn it into would be effective.

If Americans know that the Military/War on Terror/War in Iraq/National & Homeland security issues can be handled effectively and more than satisfactorily by the Democratic ticket and that a transition could be easily maneuvered (Bush's theme again is ....STEADY Leadership), the election will then be about what it should be about....the economy, jobs, health care and the future of America. That is Kerry's forte and Americans would listen without the other background noise (fear, fear, fear, war, war, war, terror, terror, terror, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11).

That is why I believe that the Democratic Ticket should be the "Heavy Medal" ticket...... We must not just neutralize...but we must neuter BushCo. on the entire enchilada.....give them no room to move, not room to tinker.

Heroes vs. Zeros.....now, that's priceless!

That's my take....

[skip fox]

24. Well considered. And "Heroes, Not Zeros" should be a bumpersticker!

:toast:

[sandersadu]

57. Wes Clark

As an avid Edwards fan, and a veteran of the epic Clark v. Edwards VP debates a few months, I agree with your analysis.

Personally I would have rather seen a Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark ticket. What too many Democrats seem to ignore, and why I was so mad during the primaries, is that while Kerry has great qualities, he also presents a big target (20 year senate voting record, shaggy-haired anti-war protester).

For people outside the coasts, these "cultural issues matter." I asked people during the Kerry band-wagon during primaries 2 critical questions which no one would answer:

(1) What states is Kerry going to win that we didn't win last time and why?

(2) What are Kerry's weaknesses v. Clark/Edwards? (I mean honestly what would you attack Clark about - that he was 1st in his class at West Point, Supreme Allied Commander and a Southerner? What about Edwards - Trial lawyer and "too young" are the only possible lines of attack.

Kerry has much more to attack, and unfortunately for us, his campaign staff has been less than skillful about communication, as well as just having some good common sense.

[Mick Knox]

21. Kerry hasnt slid in the POLLs!!!!!!

It was a repuke media whore poll anyway.

Kerry knows exactly what he's doing and the gloves are coming off!

[sangh0]

26. They will never acknowledge the lie

Look above and see how they just will not accept the possibility that this poll is flawed.

After I pointed out to skip fox that Kerry hasn't slid, he changed his argument to "Kerry should be doing better" w/o acknowledging that he had made a mistake.

And Democat, always willing to believe whatever criticism is thrown at a Dem, asks "What if it were three polls?", and ignores the FACT that it's only one poll.

[skip fox]

27. Why are they coming off? Because the campaign is re-adjusting. Why are

the re-adjusting? Because (slipping or not) they're reassessing.

Like many others, I'm trying to aid in the process. (The extent of the slide,if any, is not the point, as the thread contends elsewhere.)

[sangh0]

29. More spin

It's a commonly known fact that the serious campaigning doesn't begin until after the summer, when people are actually paying attention.

Like many others, I'm trying to aid in the process

SOrry, but spreading misinformation is not "aid"

(The extent of the slide,if any, is not the point, as the thread contends elsewhere.)

WHAT!!!

"if any"??????

You just said there WAS a slide. A LONG SLIDE. Now it's "if any"???

[sangh0]

40. Here's a poll that shows Kerry leading, dated 9/3

http://www.electoral-vote.com/fin/sep03p.html

I guess THAT's the problem you want to fix

[Bluebear]

28. What alleged long slide? nt

[Radical Activist]

43. One bad poll doesn't make a slide. Chill

[ItsMyParty]

55. Hi--came late to tonight's party, I see....have a question

From what I can put together from the above posts, this was a Time Magazine Poll..correct?? What might help here is: are there now a number of polls out post-convention and this was one out of whack poll or is this like maybe the only poll out to add to the Zogby's Bush up by 2??? I ask because certain things just stick in my mind: 1) Zogby has always been way generous with the Dem side of things that's why when he had '2' I was holding my breath about what other's might say; 2) I also found Time's polls to be reasonable and right along with the general pack. So, before everyone throws "spit balls" (as Zell would say), could someone put it all in context? (I've seen no polls today).

[sangh0]

60. The poll is just one "out of whack" poll

that was done by a former employee of Fox News

[ItsMyParty]

61. then besides Zogby and this one wacko, what other ones were put

out today. Also, I thought CNN always glued itself to Gallup. Why is it with Time right now???

[sangh0]

63. I suggest

you go through the forum looking at the threads relating to this.

And Time has a history or outlier polls.

[Awsi Dooger]

62. Sorry, you left out the most critical: he's likability challenged

Stuff like the Swift Boat crap and flip flop charges would hysterically bounce off someone more charismatic and charming, a candidate who could deflect them with a smile and a profound quick sound byte, and not an angry rambling discourse. We made a strategic and safe elevation of John Kerry in the spring and I damn sure hope he sneaks this out, but it was prototype ignorance not to see the potential for this vulnerability. You can't consistently field the candidate who is generally viewed as less likable by the Average White Male and be surprised when he stumbles.

64. Response to the 1-2-3 List rather than poll comment

One of Karl Rove’s main techniques is to attack the other guy on *'s many weaknesses before we do.

1.) most liberal senator = Because * is not a real conservative but a right wing extremist
2.) flip-flopper = Because * is the Photo-Op President. I.e., Pose w/veterans then cut benefits. Bin Laden Dead or Alive then Who Cares?
3.) will not support troops = Because * sent thousands out without proper armor—an appalling weakness.
4.) war record not earned = AWOL
5.) actually a coward who sought the succor of 3 purple hearts = AWOL
6.) traitor to the troops left behind with his perjurious testimony to Congress = Traitor to his own military commanders by ignoring their admonitions and sending too few troops with too little armor. Reckless disregard for serious warnings by intelligence professionals about impending attacks.
7.) unfit to command = AWOL. My Pet Goat. Charging off for Iraq and letting Bin Laden go. Ignoring urgent expert advice. Lying to the whole world.

So #8 is whatever worst aspect of *’s profile Karl Rove hopes to deflect.
-- Will they find a way to hype a story about Kerry and war profiteering ? OR Kerry insider trading ?
:evilgrin: