Republican Nat'l Convention (I'm going to be sick)Follow

September 11, 2001. We are all Familiar With It We all know what happened it was a national Tragidy.


The Republicans Have the balls to go around and Politicize A National Tragidy.

Excuse me but Anyone who would base thier Convention around the Death of 3,000 Americans NEEDS to be kicked out of office.

I Am going to be sick.

Nevermind. I know nothing about politics. I will refrain from posting anything opinion related from now on.

Edited, Wed Sep 1 02:00:19 2004 by Thenaturalstyles

Ahh, so by your admission he can't make up his mind how he feels about issues. He simply takes what appears to be the most politically expedient route.

Source please, oh talking head.

Besides, according to a Time Magazine poll last week, he's already starting to get his bounce.

Interesting. Would love to be able to find the date on the poll itself, but I didn't want to spend all night.

Incidentally, and perhaps predictably, I prefer this one.

And thank you for admitting that the good Senator couldn't make up his mind without a room full of aids and reams of polling data.

Just a point. Job and economy was the largest single catagory with 31% of pollers. However, "the war on terrorism and security" garned 19%, "the war in Iraq" got 14%, and "Foreign Policy" got 7%.

Taken together, that's 40% of the population Smash. Given that those three issues are pretty tightly intertwined, I'd say it's not completely accurate to say that the economy is going to have more impact then how people percieve the war on terror.


What's interesting in that data is that Republicans were most likely to think of the war on terror and the war in Iraq as related issues, while Dems were more likely to separate them, agreeing with the war on terror, but not the war in Iraq.

You can juggle the numbers around anyway you want, but the poll still supports the gist of what I was saying. Bush isn't going to be able to gain many votes by focusing on the economy in his campaign. However, if he can get the undecideds to accept the Repubican position that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, and that it's all good foreign policy, he can potentially swing a huge number of votes his way.


Hence, it makes absolute sense to drive the connection between the two. Their best chance of winning is to get people to see that the war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terror, and it's a part of a process intended to prevent events like 9/11. Sure. It's a bit theatrical, but this is a national convention. What did you expect? Build up the emotions of 9/11. Show how we can prevent such things in the future via an action like Iraq. Convince the people that it's making them safer. Bingo. All those people on the fence fall into line.


Again. It's a national convention. Did you expect a bunch of somber people standing around making boring speaches?

Edited, Wed Sep 1 05:03:31 2004 by gbaji

Lol. That one is pretty funny.

What do you mean they're inconsistent? They've got the "undecideds" listed by who they think they'll vote for. Not surprisingly "undecided" is the largest catagory. How's that for consistency...?

I also love how like 47 percent think that the war in Iraq was Bush's most signficant accomplishment, and 46 think it was his biggest failure. The other 7 percent? Must be, you guessed it! Undecided... ;)

If not, the fact that Bush had Carry beat by 15% of the total in the undecideds polled on preference.


55% of them said they wanted someone other than Bush, too.

It's a crazy contradictory data set, which you often get from undecideds. That's why they're undecided, they have no real clue what's going on.

They'll break for Kerry about 70/30, like they have against every other incumbent in simmilar circumstances.

Turnout will decide this election. The undecideds have much less power than ever before.

Hmmm... So lets say I made a poll that asked "which of the following do you like the most":

1. Cake and icecream
2. Snickers bars
3. M&Ms
4. Milky Way bars.


If "Cake and Icecream" got 40% of the answers would you then conclude that Cake and Icream was the most liked snack food? Maybe. But the poll leans that way already.

Take this poll (with the same question):

1. Cake
2. Icecream
3. Candy bars


Wouldn't the results be very different? If "Cake and Icecream" together got 40% of the total in the first poll, then the category of "Candy bars" would logically get 60% of the total in the second. Hmmm...


It's all about how you lump things together. The poll lumps "Jobs" and "Economy" into one category. Thus everyone who thinks either jobs or the economy in general are the most important thing will all end up in that one catagory. The poll then splits "foreign policy", "war on terror", and "war in Iraq" into three separate categories. The fact that there are three choices means that if you happen to think foreign policy alone is really important, you may decide that one aspect of it is *most* important. Aren't both "wars" really subsets of foreign policy? Certainly they *could* be lumped into one catagory just as easily as "jobs and economy" were.

Additionally, when you lump things together you automatically assign more weight in the eyes of the people being polled. "jobs and economy" covers a lot of ground. You might decide that the war in Iraq by itself is not more important then "jobs and economy", but if it was a larger category (like "foreign policy and war on terror") with no mention of "war in Iraq" as a separate issue in the poll, then the percieved importance of that category would appear higher. More people will poll for a combined category then the combined totals of three if split up.


The poll could just as easily have had choices like: "unemployment", "taxes", "outsourcing", and "cost of living". Obviously, all of those would end up being split from that 31% that all just chose "Jobs and economy" (and as explained above would probably lose some since less people would think any one of them was more important then one of the other's not split fro the "jobs and economy" choice). How you ask the questions is often more important then the answers people give.


I'm not trying to argue that there's anything sinister going on. Just that you have to look at the choices polled when evaluating the answers. You have to look at the size of the categories in addition to the poll numbers. Those numbers don't say that "the economy" is the number one concern. They say that "jobs *and* economy" is most important to 31% of the people, and then goes on to assign other values to other things. You have to look at the whole set, not just pick the biggest answer and make an assumption from that alone.

You all are really that dense aren't you? The Dems are still very much clintons party. There's not a chance in hell they'll let kerry win because there's no way hitlaries going to wait another 8 years before she gets her shot. Whether you like it or not you know kerry won't beat bush and then you'll be thinking about how to defend hitlary in her run.

Varus

Actually, I don't think thats true. Maybe to ultra foaming at the mouth right wing nutjobs that still seems the case. But the moderate undecided voter has a short memory. That played into the 2000 election because it was the vice president, but most have forgotten who Clinton even was, besides some fuzzy memory of president from when the economy was still hopefull.

The economy will play a huge role in this election. No significant terrorist event has happened on US soil since 9/11. National Security has slipped to the back of the voters mind no matter how hard the GOP tries to dig it out with pictures of flags waving and buildings falling. The sooner the GOP realizes that they are going to have to shift their strategy to events right here on shore the better chance they will have.

Strong morals and good will alone will not carry Bush through this election. It's a different country than it was in 2001

M&M's aren't candy bars. I know you'll probably write a twleve paragraph thread talking about the 'semantics' of candy bars and stastics and your roommate who no doubt wrote her thesis in modern candy production and classification, but there you are.


Let's not forget the signifigant personal experience where he used luck, plcuk, virtue, and M&M's to overcome adveristy.

Xyth wrote:



The primary goal of liberal democrats is to downplay the war and focus on the economy. This is misleading though in that the state of the economy can be directly connected with the war on terror. All in all considering Bush inherited a recession and had to deal with the after effects of 911 I'd say the economy is going pretty well. Kerry's voting record is weak on national defense so they need all thought and sight of the war hushed up for now because as we all know out of sight out of mind.

Varus

Smashed wrote:



Most people outside of the U.S. speaking of sources where did you get this one?



Because they're seen as being weak on national defense and in a time of war when people are reminded of the sacrifices the troops are making they take that with them to the booths. Regardless of what you think national defense will always be the first thing people look at when voting; the economy's second.

Varus