Octopus Overlords

Eco-Logic wrote:I'm aware of those polls.

As I said, my opinion and the opinion of many pundits. Some polls show differently I'm sure.

Try "virtually ALL polls" show differently.

And "many pundits"?

From Eco's link:

Most polls showed that Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, won the first debate, but political analysts said they thought Mr. Bush was much more comfortable and assertive in last night's second debate, a town-hall format at which undecided voters asked questions at Washington University in St. Louis.

Note - nothing about Bush winning, just that he was more comfortable.

CNN's focus group of undecided voters reacted positively when Mr. Bush was speaking, and nearly all of those asked said they had made their decision last night. Several national polls have the race a statistical dead heat, a couple of which had seen Mr. Bush lose a slight lead after the first debate.
The consensus of Democrats last night was that Mr. Kerry did not lose the momentum he gained from the first debate, and that his attacks on the president's handling of Iraq and the economy will do some damage as the tight race heads into the final weeks of the election.

Can you quote the portion of your article that describes "many pundits" considering Bush teh winnar?

Exodor wrote:

Eco-Logic wrote:I'm aware of those polls.

As I said, my opinion and the opinion of many pundits. Some polls show differently I'm sure.

Try "virtually ALL polls" show differently.

And "many pundits"?

From Eco's link:

Most polls showed that Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, won the first debate, but political analysts said they thought Mr. Bush was much more comfortable and assertive in last night's second debate, a town-hall format at which undecided voters asked questions at Washington University in St. Louis.

Note - nothing about Bush winning, just that he was more comfortable.

CNN's focus group of undecided voters reacted positively when Mr. Bush was speaking, and nearly all of those asked said they had made their decision last night. Several national polls have the race a statistical dead heat, a couple of which had seen Mr. Bush lose a slight lead after the first debate.
The consensus of Democrats last night was that Mr. Kerry did not lose the momentum he gained from the first debate, and that his attacks on the president's handling of Iraq and the economy will do some damage as the tight race heads into the final weeks of the election.

Can you quote the portion of your article that describes "many pundits" considering Bush teh winnar?

The title of the article "Pundits see Bush win in second debate."

Not 'many', and if you want to concentrate on technicalities like that go ahead.

I think Kerry looked like a ignorant pompus ass in every debate, so it really doesn't matter to me in the end.

So a Moony rag ignores all polling data and finds a few selected pundits to say Bush won. This is convincing... how?

Look at the polling data. The polls show a tie with a slight Kerry edge. That's how the debate actually played out, who cares what the Moony Boys think?

Eco-Logic, you're as fiercely partisan as I am, if not more so. I don't think either of us can give an unbiased appraisal of the two candidates' performances, so your opinion should be ignored, unless you can show polling data to back it up.

Eco-Logic wrote: I think Kerry looked like a ignorant pompus ass in every debate, so it really doesn't matter to me in the end.

This whole idea that it's somehow better for a leader (making decisions that effect the entire world) to be folksy and approachable (even if he's not quite always there) as opposed to intellectual and analytical truly baffles me.

Geezer, I am going by what Kerry said during the 3rd debate when he was saying something like he wants all Americans to have the same HC plan and options as Senators do. If this is implemented, most of our premiums will increase. I know where you are coming from though. It is the same for me at my work.

I would love for someone to tell me though, in a detailed paragraph, how Kerry is gonna come up with +/- $2 trillion for stupid HC without raising taxes. Honestly, there is not way unless increasing the defecit....more!

Kirk, if Kerry's plan on HC is exactly what he said during the 3rd debate....he is in for a rude awakening!

Neither candidate has a good plan for this. As I said before, WE have to pay for the governments mistakes and trust me, we will and we always have. The gov't should have NEVER gotten into the HC business. Social Programs have taken its toll on this country. I am not saying that they are evil, I am just saying that there are people that do not need to be in the programs.

To conclude, you cannot look at a persons website (Kerry or Bush) and read that as the gospel. If you look at Bush's 2000 goals, he only met around 40% and the ones he met were cosmetically changed from his 2000 website cause Congress dont always like your ideas. You must look at their voting record and what they have accomplished. Kerry's voting record speaks for itself (Pathetic) and Bush's accomplishments aren't to shiny either (NCLB / Patriot Act / etc.).

I dont know, honestly, I am considering 3rd party even more or just not even voting. I support Bush but the more I listen to him, the less sense he makes and Kerry really doesn't know what he is gonna do and he ain't telling either.

Look at this side too... If Kerry gets elected, in the first 2 years of his Presidency, he will have a Republican ruled Congress which means he ain't really gonna get much done. It will be like the last 2 years of the Clinton Admin (the only thing that got done was Monica ). Practically, he will be a lame duck for at least 2 years and nothing will get done!

Eco-Logic wrote: Not 'many', and if you want to concentrate on technicalities like that go ahead.

I think Kerry looked like a ignorant pompus ass in every debate, so it really doesn't matter to me in the end.

Wha??

Eco-Logic wrote:Just my opinion, and the opinion of many pundits.

Eco-Logic wrote: As I said, my opinion and the opinion of many pundits

"Technicalities" like something you felt was so important you said it twice?

And do you honestly miss the difference between "a few pundits writing for a right-wing paper" and "many pundits"?


Let's try from a different angle:

"Some left-wing nutballs accuse Bush of conspiring with the Saudi Royal Family"

"Many pundits accuse Bush of conspiring with the Saudi Royal Family"


Do you consider those statements equal, or does the difference between them rise about "technicalities"?