« TAP's Take | Main | Only In Dreams »

Debate Polling

Democracy Corps's large sample overnight survey confirms my sense from the web last night. Republicans think Bush won, Democrats think Kerry won, and Independents think Kerry won. That's the way elections are won, provided we don't see a Gallup-esque oversample of Republicans at the voting booths. Now a lot of people are a bit complacent about that because ACT has registered all these new people. Fair enough, but in the vast majority of the country the police and the courts are going to be at the disposal of a political party which has decided that there's nothing wrong with fucking with military deployments as part of its reelection campaign.

October 1, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834218cd753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debate Polling:

» Numbers from Julie Saltman
Heed Matt's warning...I am the first to admit that I was one of the many who got swept up in the contagious optimism of MyDD, and to a lesser extent Kos, before the 2002 election. We all came down hard on November 5th. It can't happen again this Nove... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 1, 2004 11:07:48 AM

Comments

***a political party which has decided that there's nothing wrong with fucking with military deployments as part of its reelection campaign.***

Who was it who recently said "[P]eople who persist in addressing their opponents in this manner cannot be compromised, negotiated, or reasoned with", again?

Some of you guys make it waaaaay too easy.


Posted by: RW | Oct 1, 2004 10:11:54 AM

I give the slight nod to Kerry in terms of overall performance, after a really scary intro to his first answer that must have put a smile on Karl Rove's face.

But he righted himself after that and gave a solid performance.

I think the perception that his campaign had stumbled all summer long lowered the expectations a bit - and he far exceeded those expectations.

Bush was Bush. He's often a little better than I think he's going to be, just because I suppose I'm usually expecting some whopper of a gaff.

At any rate, I agree with the CW that it was a Kerry win, albeit a slight one.

Looking forward to Edwards/Cheney.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Oct 1, 2004 10:21:29 AM

Pudentilla's Perspective has a summary of US and European media reaction to the debate (short answer: Kerry wins bigtime), which includes comparisons of Bush to a) Fredo in the Godfather; b) Alfred E. Newman; c) Barney Fife.

Posted by: Pudentilla | Oct 1, 2004 10:24:48 AM

Watching the debate, I had an eerie sense of
Deja vu... Bush's expressions were almost
exactly the expressions he made during his My
Pet Goat moment...


Go to the www.democrats.org for a video of Bush's
facial expressions...

Posted by: Greg | Oct 1, 2004 10:37:22 AM

Dang, all those articles are about style. Sure, it's great that Kerry won, but I still would like to see some media outlets doing more substantive analysis.

Posted by: Josh Yelon | Oct 1, 2004 10:40:48 AM

Greg, I said this is another thread--I swear Bush almost fell asleep in the seventh example.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 1, 2004 10:45:11 AM

Oh, I think most people across the spectrum are saying Kerry won (take a look at NRO, for instance)... my sense is that many Republicans are conceding that he flubbed this one but hoping he can make up for it next time, while a minority of True Believers are somehow convincing themselves that he won.

Posted by: Julian Sanchez | Oct 1, 2004 11:58:22 AM

This Republican thinks Kerry won, hands down.--s

Posted by: j.scott barnard | Oct 1, 2004 12:32:31 PM

Several observations. If Bush, the villainous, out-of-touch, lying cretin, lost, then why haven’t the poll numbers changed?

I distinctly remember reading 4 years ago that there was something childlike, unfair and blah blah blah about focusing on Gore’s sighs. So why isn’t there something childlike, unfair and blah blah blah about focusing on Bush’s facial mannerisms?

I plan to vote against Bush, but nothing Kerry said last night changed my mind that he’s lying about his Iraq strategy. He said over and over again last night that he’s going to bring in lots of international support. That’s a lie, plain and simple. He may get a couple of thousand troops and some chump change from the French and Germans, but that’s it, and he knows it.

Finally, relying on Carville for polling data?!?!!!

Posted by: ostap | Oct 1, 2004 12:48:12 PM

the vast majority of the country the police and the courts are going to be at the disposal of a political party which has decided that there's nothing wrong with fucking with military deployments as part of its reelection campaign

Yeah, but that won't be enough to help the Democrats win.

I agree with SoCalJustice's view of the debate. Kerry won, but not dramatically. Both candidates misstated things (sometimes deliberately, sometimes not). The debate was more substantive than I expected, but didn't really affect my thinking.

Posted by: Shelby | Oct 1, 2004 1:22:30 PM

I give the slight nod to Kerry in terms of overall performance, after a really scary intro to his first answer that must have put a smile on Karl Rove's face.

You mean when Kerry took a high road by explicitly disclaiming any intention of questioning Bush's patriotism?

Posted by: David Tomlin | Oct 1, 2004 1:35:25 PM

Ostap,

Why will you vote against Bush ( does that mean you'll vote Kerry or Libertarian? )?

Posted by: WeSaferThemHealthier | Oct 1, 2004 1:45:48 PM

I plan to vote against Bush, but nothing Kerry said last night changed my mind that he’s lying about his Iraq strategy. He said over and over again last night that he’s going to bring in lots of international support. That’s a lie, plain and simple. He may get a couple of thousand troops and some chump change from the French and Germans, but that’s it, and he knows it.

I think this lying is necessary. If you think about it, what else can he do? It's a pretty harmless criticism.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 1, 2004 2:33:59 PM

wesafer - I'm voting against Bush because everything he touches turns to trash. Discretionary spending is waaaaaay up, he sent waaaaay to few troops to Iraq (do it right or don't do it at all as far as I'm concerned), and I don't like the Ashcroft wing of the party. I'll touch the screen for Kerry.

praktike - I guess I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy, but I believe that lying about the most important issue facing our country is wrong on general principles. And as a practical matter, 6 months into a Kerry presidency when the French and Germans send us $1.75 and 26 troops, Kerry will rightly come in for a public flogging.

Posted by: ostap | Oct 1, 2004 2:45:13 PM

The only reason that so many people think Kerry won is because the expectations for him were so low. The fact that he didn't wet himself on stage and crawl into the fetal position is a win for him.

The fact is that Kerry needs to land a knock-out punch, and he did not even come close.

His 'global test' comment is going to haunt him, because that's probably the most memorable sound-byte of the night. Sure, at times Bush slouched and looked uncomfortable, but we as a society are way past Kennedy-Nixon-1960. People no longer vote according to, nor truly believe in, purely televised images.

And what about the fact that Kerry either forgets or disses Poland at every turn? There are 10 million people of Polish ancestry in the US - most in NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, MN, NJ, WI, FL - in other words, in places Kerry must win. He cost himself several hundred thousand votes last night.

Dziękuję!!!!

Posted by: Larry | Oct 1, 2004 4:13:29 PM

Oh, Larry, are you for real, or a parody?

Really, I can't tell.

You must be a parody. Either that or you really do think that simply stating something makes it true.

I'll make it simple for you.

You are explaining, so you are losing.

Kerry was Presidential, Bush was tired and cranky.

I kinda feel sorry for Bush, with all the hard work and work that is hard that he faces. He gets woke up every single day by a guy who tells him to protect us. That must really suck. No wonder he needs a break.

And Bush kept saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." Does he really believe that? I thought he supported the war.

And I really don't get why we need Red China and Russia to help us out dealing with foreign countries. Aren't they the bad guys?

I think maybe Bush was tired and misconfused.

Posted by: Tripp | Oct 1, 2004 4:39:12 PM

Hey Tripp -

I've got two words for you: "Global Test"

Is that 'Presidential'? Did Kennedy use a 'Global Test' during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did Reagan use a 'Global Test' when he challenged Gorbachev?

If you don't get why we need China to help deal with North Korea, maybe you should look at a map. You don't know who the bad guys are? Don't worry, neither does your candidate, and that's probably why you like him, and it's definitely why he's going to lose.

If you don't believe me about the Poles, maybe you should visit there, or at least ask a few. Do you think that I'm making it up, that Kerry keeps dissing them and they don't like it? There are millions of people of Polish heritage in states that Kerry MUST win - and they're not voting for him.

I've got two more words for you: 'Land' and 'Slide'. Put them together into one word, if your pithy little brain can handle it, to see how Bush will win on Nov. 2.

The personal attacks are amusing, and show that you're losing. I made concrete points, and you imply that I'm a parody. You didn't even bother to illustrate an opposing point of view! Oh, that's right, Bush was tired.

Keep Trippin'!

Posted by: Larry | Oct 1, 2004 6:55:56 PM

Did Kennedy use a 'Global Test' during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

He sent Dean Acheson to Paris, no?

Did Reagan use a 'Global Test' when he challenged Gorbachev?

Dunno. What about when, away from his handlers in Helsinki, he gave Gorby all of the concessions that were asked of him?

Better GOPwits, please. I know, it's hard...

Posted by: ahem | Oct 1, 2004 8:35:37 PM

Larry.
Maybe if you knew what "global test" means you wouldn't see it as so radical.

In reference to pre-emptive strikes, Kerry said,
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

It's about proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Are you suggesting that the President shouldn't have to bother proving to the world that he is acting for legitimate reasons? Or even trying to prove it? Legitimacy is a funny thing but it seems that any American leader would believe that their pre-emptive actions should be morally acceptable to the rest of the world. In fact, Bush says so all the time. Colin Powell appeared at the UN precisely to convince the world that other nations' interests were aligned with the United States. That sounds like a "global test". When Bush frames the war in Iraq in terms of spreading freedom he is explicitly attempting to provide international legitimacy to his action. After all, who doesn't love freedom? Isn't it God's gift to humankind? Shouldn't the world rally around a cause to defend freedom? The world may not buy it - and the gist of Kerry's criticism is that Bush's efforts have been so half-assed - but surely Bush is trying to pass his pre-emptive doctrine in Iraq in the "global test" of legitimacy.

And the Polish comment is ludicrous - or I should say, non-comment. Poland is withdrawing its troops the end of this year. President Kwasnieski openly admitted that his country had been deceived. Sorry, but Kerry wasn't exactly "insulting" Poles. Kerry was listing a handful of the largest contributors to the coalition in order to make the point that the coalition was so small, especially considering the percentage of casualties and costs taken by the US. When Bush said, "what about Poland?" I honestly thought he was joking. What ABOUT Poland, Mr. Bush? Why is Poland leaving the Coalition of the Willing? Sorry, Larry, but Polish people are not as stupid as you think they are.

Posted by: Elrod | Oct 2, 2004 3:39:16 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.