"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

At this moment, 11:45 pm EST, the MSNBC poll on the same subject has it
Kerry 71, Bush 29, with about 350,000 voting.

Again, though, I have no idea whether the site blocks repetitive voting.



Just to check, I just voted twice at MSNBC, WSJ, and CNN.

However, I do find minor validity in these polls. If the numbers were
5 ot 10% apart I'd say someone could be voting a lot to change the
numbers. But when Bush is running 30% to Kerry's 70% on all
three sites, I'd say it's somewhat accurate.

I notice Bush IS winning the AOL poll. I'm not sure
that says much for Bush.




It says he's favored by people who like to be aggravated?

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.




I don't know the word, either, but Kerry addressed the behavior at one point
by saying it's one thing to be committed to an idea initially, but wrong to
be totally inflexible as new information is discovered. I'm sure this idea
was lost on Bush.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/223850.shtml

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

In all fairness, Harry, we must allow for the possibility of several things:

1) The average Bush supporter couldn't figure out the TV schedule, and
missed the debate completely.

2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.

3) The average Bush supporter wanted to vote by computer afterward, but
couldn't figure out where the keyboard plugged in because it was dark, and
hard to see under the hoods of their cars.



Well, I really was shocked by how bad Bush was. I expected Kerry to win
on debate style, but I thought Bush's low-key, "winning" personality
would help the President. It wasn't in evidence. Bush seemed to run out
of things to say before 20 minutes had gone bu, and...and this is really
important, he looked as if he couldn't handle the very direct and
straightforward questions being put to him (and to Kerry) by Lehrer.

I've always been concerned by Bush's inarticulateness. It should be the
kiss of death of a politician. I've read that many Americans like Bush
because "he talks just like we do." If that is true, we have truly been
taken over by the stupid.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives


All you need to know about NewsMAx is contained in these lines that
follow the article you cite:

"Editor's note:
# Urgent: President Bush needs your support – Click Here Now and show
your support to your friends and family."







--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Bush completely blew it, but according to CNN the polls do not show the
debate changed anyone's mind.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 01 Oct 2004 02:57:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he
did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

However, don't forget there's a reason that newspapers are written on a
sixth
grade level. There will undoubtedly be a lot of folks who think Bush was
more
"folksy", and if that's the most important quality for a POTUS, then he
surely
scored points with them.

Bush came across as a whiner. He wasted several of his 30 second rebuttal
periods repeating himself. He let pass several opportunities to nail
Kerry. Not
a good job for Bush.

Kerry was very 'presidential' for a lying scumbag.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

There are 10 kinds of people in the world,
those who do binary and those who don't!

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:16:06 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/223850.shtml

The author does make some good points. Lerher was asking questions designed to
show administration faults.

John H

A. Bull****. The debate was about foreign policy since 9-11.
B. Bush is the sitting POTUS. He wants another term. His
administration's record is the issue in this campaign.

NewsMax...Jesus.





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:35:20 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Bush completely blew it, but according to CNN the polls do not show the
debate changed anyone's mind.

It's way too early to say but . . . for many, this was their first real
look at Kerry. It may take some time to sink in. If Kerry hadn't made a
good showing, he was done for. I'm not so sure the same can be said of
Bush. Reagan did very poorly in his first debate with Mondale, but
devastated him in the second. This race is far from over, but Kerry's
showing can not hurt him. On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:35:20 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Bush completely blew it, but according to CNN the polls do not show the
debate changed anyone's mind.

It's way too early to say but . . . for many, this was their first real
look at Kerry. It may take some time to sink in. If Kerry hadn't made a
good showing, he was done for. I'm not so sure the same can be said of
Bush. Reagan did very poorly in his first debate with Mondale, but
devastated him in the second. This race is far from over, but Kerry's
showing can not hurt him. On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

Kerry has a sackful of "shutdowns" for any quips that come from Bush.
Reagan was articulate and knew how to use language. Bush's jokes are
inappropriate in a world he has made more dangerous.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:32:15 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:



"Editor's note:
# Urgent: President Bush needs your support - Click Here Now and show
your support to your friends and family."

Hopefully, the need will be become more urgent. ;-)