OK, I was Wrong On Debate Victor, But...
It seems that I am probably wrong on who won this debate. That may be due to low expectations for Kerry and high expectations for Bush, both of whom performed fairly well. In this case, Kerry exceeded expectations and Bush didn't live up to his. A recent Newsweek poll suggests this. However, due to Kerry's apparent climb in almost every topic, I have suspicions. Let me quote one of the more disturbing parts:
I really doubt that 45% of registered voters would say "the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction." The wording is far too strong to get much more than 35%. I think that the poll may have been titled (more democrats were polled than republicans, LA Times did the same thing several months ago). However, I can't get the percentages of registered democrats and republicans in the poll, though such information is usually released with poll results.
Ahh, here is some stuff from Powerline
These polls are usually calibrated, so that if you question 300 democrats and 400 republicans, they may average the party affiliations out to the most recent good party membership statistics (about 33% of Americans are republicans while 33% are democrats, but there is some variation). This usually makes the poll far more accurate. However, I am not sure if Newsweek calibrates their polls like this.
Additionally, this poll was only of registered voters, not likely voters. Polls of registered voters are consistently less accurate, and have tended to lean towards Kerry recently.
Finally, the belief that a second Bush administration will reinstate the draft really ticks me off. Not only is this belief completely unfounded and false, but I refuse to believe that 40% of the public think Bush will bring back the draft. In fact, the bill to reinstate the draft was supported by 14 democrats (and about a year ago, I think), not republicans!
Meanwhile, Zogby has been showing Bush with a small lead over likely voters.
So, Kerry may have won the debate by exceeding low expectations and (finally) mentioning the issues once or twice, I don't think he won by as much as Newsweek claims he did.
Personally, I am displeased with Bush's lower-than-expectations performance. There were several points (like unilaterally talking with North Korea, instead of the current multilateral talks. Why does Kerry suddenly want to go unilaterally?) on which Bush could slaughter Kerry, but he didn't. Perhaps he plans to win decisively in the second debate. If that is true, he set low expectations for himself and made Kerry more popular. Bush does best with low expectations.
I hope he does slaughter Kerry soon. I can't stand jubilant liberals. I especially can’t stand this draft hysteria, belief that America is worse off for invading Iraq, unilateral talks will disarm North Korea (maybe that story about China preparing its military should imply that China is ready to threaten North Korea? That’d be a lot better than conquering Hong Kong or Taiwan, at least from the US perspective), and the entire ‘Bush stole Florida, lied, killed 1000 troops, raised oil prices, is a puppet for Haliburton, missed a perfectly good chance to catch Bin Laden’, and all that other junk. That “outsourced the chance to catch Bin Laden” was particularly stupid of Kerry, and Bush really should have gone after that claim, in my opinion. But, I’m no expert on campaign strategy, and can only speculate that Bush wants to look like the underdog for the next debate.
But only 46 percent feel going to war was the right decision in the first place with just as many (45 percent) under the impression that the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
I really doubt that 45% of registered voters would say "the administration deliberately misled the nation into war with falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction." The wording is far too strong to get much more than 35%. I think that the poll may have been titled (more democrats were polled than republicans, LA Times did the same thing several months ago). However, I can't get the percentages of registered democrats and republicans in the poll, though such information is usually released with poll results.
Ahh, here is some stuff from Powerline
[A]ccording to RealClearPolitics, Newsweek's most recent poll included 345 Republicans, 364 Democrats and 278 independents. This compares to Newsweek's published data for their most recent prior poll, which showed President Bush with a comfortable lead: 391 Republicans, 300 Democrats and 270 independents. Yes, if you drop 46 Republicans and add 64 Democrats, you will get considerably better results for the Democratic nominee. This is a good reminder of why poll data always need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially until you see the underlying data.
These polls are usually calibrated, so that if you question 300 democrats and 400 republicans, they may average the party affiliations out to the most recent good party membership statistics (about 33% of Americans are republicans while 33% are democrats, but there is some variation). This usually makes the poll far more accurate. However, I am not sure if Newsweek calibrates their polls like this.
Additionally, this poll was only of registered voters, not likely voters. Polls of registered voters are consistently less accurate, and have tended to lean towards Kerry recently.
Finally, the belief that a second Bush administration will reinstate the draft really ticks me off. Not only is this belief completely unfounded and false, but I refuse to believe that 40% of the public think Bush will bring back the draft. In fact, the bill to reinstate the draft was supported by 14 democrats (and about a year ago, I think), not republicans!
Meanwhile, Zogby has been showing Bush with a small lead over likely voters.
So, Kerry may have won the debate by exceeding low expectations and (finally) mentioning the issues once or twice, I don't think he won by as much as Newsweek claims he did.
Personally, I am displeased with Bush's lower-than-expectations performance. There were several points (like unilaterally talking with North Korea, instead of the current multilateral talks. Why does Kerry suddenly want to go unilaterally?) on which Bush could slaughter Kerry, but he didn't. Perhaps he plans to win decisively in the second debate. If that is true, he set low expectations for himself and made Kerry more popular. Bush does best with low expectations.
I hope he does slaughter Kerry soon. I can't stand jubilant liberals. I especially can’t stand this draft hysteria, belief that America is worse off for invading Iraq, unilateral talks will disarm North Korea (maybe that story about China preparing its military should imply that China is ready to threaten North Korea? That’d be a lot better than conquering Hong Kong or Taiwan, at least from the US perspective), and the entire ‘Bush stole Florida, lied, killed 1000 troops, raised oil prices, is a puppet for Haliburton, missed a perfectly good chance to catch Bin Laden’, and all that other junk. That “outsourced the chance to catch Bin Laden” was particularly stupid of Kerry, and Bush really should have gone after that claim, in my opinion. But, I’m no expert on campaign strategy, and can only speculate that Bush wants to look like the underdog for the next debate.
posted by Chris at
2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home