Democratic Convention

[Marcus Telcontar]

I have made no secret of my disgust for Shrub or his cronies. for once, i am following US politics and with having a USA native here at present, it's been an education.

Hence, I was able to tune into some speechs made at the convention. Jimmy Carter was interesting, Hilary Clinton too, but frankly, Bill Clinton has a true gift of speech. It reminded me just how good he was. Some of the turns of phrase were beautiful and put the situation so well.

The most powerful I think, especially as an Intl person, was the part on how Bush and co have utterly squandered any good will from the 11/9 tragety, utterly ruining the USA's reputation in the process. I would highly advise people undecided to listen to this speech, there's so much obvious truth in it.

Be interestign to hear how Kerry stacks up in comparision.

[CMJ]

That latest Zogby poll was released yesterday. Here's his analysis.

****************************

JULY 26, 2004
Going into the Democratic National Convention, it's a squeaker again.

Two weeks ago, John Kerry had opened up his biggest lead yet in our series of Zogby Interactive polls of 16 battleground states, which started in late May. But in polling done the days before the Democratic convention was to begin, his lead began to slip, particularly in a pair of crucial states.

Let's run the numbers. We start by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battleground analysis will vote for the same political party they did in 2000. Thus, President Bush begins with 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry with 172. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the White House.

Next, we add in the electoral votes from the latest Zogby poll. Mr. Kerry leads in 12 states worth a total of 119 electoral votes, while Mr. Bush leads four states worth 58 electoral votes.Doing the math, we find that Mr. Kerry has a 291-247 lead. In the prior poll, taken days after he selected John Edwards as his running mate, Mr. Kerry was up 322-205.

Even beyond the bottom line numbers, there are other signs of some slippage in Mr. Kerry's numbers.

The Massachusetts senator musters a lead that is greater than the polls' margins of error in just four of the 12 states he leads. In the prior Zogby poll, he led in six states by such a margin. Moreover, his lead in Missouri, a crucial middle-America state that voted narrowly for Mr. Bush in 2000, has slipped to a negligible 0.1 percentage point from 3.3 points.

President Bush is on the mend in a couple of powerhouses: Ohio and Florida, which together control 47 electoral votes. Mr. Bush is about even with Mr. Kerry in Florida (he has a lead of 0.1 point), though Mr. Kerry had opened a 6.6 point lead there two weeks earlier. In Ohio, the president is ahead by 1.3 points, where previously Mr. Kerry had a small lead.

There are plenty of cautionary signs for President Bush as well. His edge over Mr. Kerry is within the polls' margins of error in all four states he leads. In three of the four states, he is ahead by fewer than three percentage points, and Nevada has slipped into Mr. Kerry's column after giving a plurality to Mr. Bush in the prior two Zogby polls.

And for all of the signs that Mr. Kerry's is on soft ground, Mr. Bush's standing is even more tenuous. If we put aside the states with the narrowest margins, those less than three percentage points, Mr. Kerry still has 257 electoral votes. From there, he could reach 270 by picking up just a single additional state. Strip away Mr. Bush's under-three-points states, and his tally falls to 194. Striking distance, perhaps, but not an easy shot.

[Jedi Master Carr]

CNN has Kerry leading in Ohio according to Bill schnedeir last night. He said Bush is in real trouble there, I actually trust CNN (who uses gallop to me the best polling group) over Zogby, although it is still early at this point I think it is best to wait till after the convention and see where the chips lie. As for the Convention, yeah Clinton did a great speech and he is one of the best speech makers the democrats have had, at least since Kennedy. It was an interesting night, honestly there wasn't much Bush bashing, they bashed policy but never hardly said Bush name and talked more about Kerry than Bush. It was really a very postive night, I hope this keep up, I hate the negative junk that politics has become.

[jjwr]

Out of curiosity could a former president become Vice-President after his two terms?

I would guess no, if the current president were to die or get impeached then the Vice-President would rise up and that would break the 2 term limit.

Again just curious.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I actually trust CNN (who uses gallop to me the best polling group) over Zogby

Zogby called Bush winning the Electoral College and Gore winning the popular vote. To my knowledge he's the only one who did so. Guess who I trust? ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL well they aren't always right when it comes down to stuff like that they could be wrong in other years. I guess I trust Gallop because they are the largest polling site and poll the most people of any group. Of course Zogby isn't saying really good things about Bush winning really it does say that it not looking great. Still I think its better to wait till after the convention that is when we can see what kind of Bounce Kerry gets. And about your question, I have no idea honestly, I would think not because if the president died you would have a third term president, but I am postive if I am right.

[CMJ]

They run their polls every 2 weeks - so we get a general idea of the trends. That's the only reason I posted it.

And yeah JJ - the President would then serve a third term. There aren't many former Presidents who would agree to be a VP. Ford was most likely Reagan's 2nd choice in 1980 though.

[CMJ]

Obama will be the first black President. That was one of the best speeches I've ever seen, from either side of the aisle. It wasn't partisan - it was about the commonality of all Americans.

Excerpt I found....
**********
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal Amercan and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and a white America -- there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States [...] but I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
*************
Wow, I'm impressed.

[Stafford]

CMJ, defintely. I agree completely. Obama's speech wowed me. That guy's going places. He's a definite win in Illinois, and he's got a great future.

Ron Reagan's speech was supposed to be non-political, and it was in most respects. Except at the end, when he told the audience to vote for stem-cell research in November, and that's impossible unless they vote for Kerry. But he did not mention Bush or the Republicans, for that matter.

Kennedy made a few mistakes in his speech, one of which was when he spoke of the farmers who stood in Concord and "fired the shirt 'round the world". Oh well. He's a senior democrat, and deserved a spot.

[CMJ]

I am NOT a Kennedy fan. ;) I found his speech to be typical droning. Even though she got raves, I wasn't big on Mrs. Kerry's speech either. I was a bit bored.

[The Man in Black]

I was kinda expecting a plane to fall on O'Reilly and Moore during their "debate" :(

[CMJ]

Originally posted by The Man in Black
I was kinda expecting a plane to fall on O'Reilly and Moore during their "debate" :(

:lol I never watch that show - but I was alerted to the fact that Moore would be on, so I caught it. I was shocked at how well they got along. :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

Obama is the future for the democrats, he will be president I bet if in 8 years 12 what have you. He is a very charasmatic person and made a great speech.

[CMJ]

Well, if the Democrats win the White House this go round - I don't see him being the nominee for several election cycles. Kerry would be running for re-election in '08. Then I'm thinking Edwards would be the presumptive nominee in '12(if Kerry wins a 2nd term or not). It's really hard to say this far out. All I know is he was terrific.

It would probably serve him better for Kerry to lose.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well he is young so its not an issue for him for the next 8 years or so anyway.

[jjwr]

What is Obama currently? That speec segment was great, thats how it should be, sadly its not that way.

[CMJ]

Obama's a state senator in Illinois. Though he's soon to be one of Illinois's US Senator's.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I think that is a guarentee, the Republicans can't even find a replacement, it looks like that will be a certainity.

[Pierce Tondry]

Democratic Convention Day 2:

Tom Daschle: I have dutifulied opposed Bush's right wing nominations. Now, I come to you and beg for you to re-elect me. Please?! Anyone?!

Ron Reagan: Some of you may be surprised that someone with my last name is speaking here. Well, you shouldn't be, because I'm a liberal.

Ted Kennedy: The only thing we have to fear is 4 more years of George Bush and me driving a car while drunk into the water with a girl inside, who mysteriously can't make it out, though I did.

Tereza Heinz Kerry: I'm going to be the First Lady of the US, so to my detractors SHOVE IT!

A little political humor. :)

[Stafford]

lol For some reason I can imagine Kennedy actually saying that, just slipping it in there.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Sharpton came the closest to Bush bashing that we have seen at this convention, but honestly it doesn't surprise me Sharpton is Sharpton. He still gave an entertaining speech though :p

[CMJ]

Sharpton's speech was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL well some people like him some don't. Now Edwards had one of the best speeches of the Convention, I think he did a great job. He is a great speaker.

[CMJ]

Yeah, Edwards was great as usual. At times it almost sounded like a Republican speech(with the beefed up military, etc).

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
LOL well some people like him some don't.

No, seriously. Who likes the man and isn't batnuts insane?

Al Sharpton makes Diane Feinstein look like Mr. Rodgers.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
No, seriously. Who likes the man and isn't batnuts insane?

Al Sharpton makes Diane Feinstein look like Mr. Rodgers.

:lol :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well black people love him, I can't say why but listen to them about the man. Oh and CMJ did you have to watch the roll call too :p I love that thing even though it is absolutely meaningless now (at one time Presidents were actually chosen through this) but it still neat to see the process. I love it how every state has to brag about itself :p

[CMJ]

Of course I watched the roll call. BTW: do you know why Ohio is always given the honor of putting the candidate over the top at the DNC? The Republican convention always has the candidates home state to the deed(which seems like a nice gesture to me) and I've never heard why the Democrats think Ohio is so important.

[Stafford]

I don't know, it was kind of weird.

Minnesota yielded to Ohio, and they put it over. IMO, Ohio smells bad. Why should they get it? :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

I didn't know why Ohio always does it for the Democrats, I do know it is generally a republican state and no republican has ever lost Ohio and went on to win the election, maybe there is some symbolism there that the Democrats are trying to make.

[CMJ]

I found this tidbit. Not sure if this is why(I mean I'm not sure how long this tradition goes back)...but it would give an explanation of sorts.
***********

The convention opened on June 26, 1928. Al Smith remained in Albany but faced little competition from other candidates. Other names placed in nomination included Senator James Reed of Missouri, Representative Cordell Hull of Tennessee, and Jesse H. Jones of Texas. However, no contender provided a serious threat to Smith, and most candidates agreed to stand behind the party and support the convention's nominee. At the first roll call, Smith received 724 2/3 votes, ten short of the number (two-thirds of the total) required for nomination. Ohio then switched its votes to Smith, and other states followed suit. Texas, the notable exception, cast its forty votes for Jones.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is possible. And how about Kerry's speech? I think he did the best job he that I have seen him done. He was very forceful (in a good way) especially for a democrat. I liked it but of course I am biased I was going to like it anyway but I thought it was a very good speech, have to see where this goes from here.

[CMJ]

I was out at an early movie screening(been doing alot of those recently) so I missed it. I'm trying to catch the highlights/analysis now.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Cool, you need to report on here which movie you went to see :)

[CMJ]

Nah, it was a French flick called Intimate Strangers. It opens limited tommorrow. A very good movie(I could honestly see a best foreign film nomination), but not one alot of folks around here care about. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heh well I hope you enjoyed it. I was hoping maybe it was Garden State since it just opened in LA and NY recently.

[CMJ]

I wasn't able to get into a screening of Garden State, though I sure tried to. I have a couple of movies lined up for next week(smaller movies again) - and I might be able to score a Collateral screening on Monday to the list.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Cool if you do that report :)

[Master Yoghurt]

For those who missed it, you can watch John Kerrys speech in entirety <a href=http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125934&ct=158807>here</a> :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

"That starts by tellign the truth to the American people"

Just pointing this quote out to people who are thinking Bush deserves voting for for moral grounds. What's worse, lying about getting a BJ or lying about a war?

Nice speech and if he does what he says, he'll go a long way in restoring the USA's position in the world.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
What's worse, lying about getting a BJ or lying about a war?


I'm so sick of this this garbage. He did not lie about taking us to war. Practically every intelligence agency on Earth thought Iraq had them. Clinton even thought he had them during his administation. Our own CIA director said it was a slam dunk.

Obviously we were wrong. They weren't there and we're bogged down living with the mistakes. But if I had all of this intelligence that said Hussein had them, I'd be inclined to believe it too. Before you rail against me as some kind of Bush fanatic, remember I didn't vote for him in 2000 and have yet to decide who I'll vote for come November(though I'm leaning towards Kerry I guess).

I'm curious to see the first polls that come out so we can see what kind of bounce Kerry gets. I wouldn't be surprised for him to be leading by 10 points or more nationally (and in most of the swing states). He'll mantain that lead until the GOP convention next month - where the battle will be joined. Then we'll see what kind of dynamic there REALLY is in the race.

[ReaperFett]

MORE BALLOONS! :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL that was funny, he got a little insane there I thought there were loads of ballons coming down I guess he wanted people drowning in them or something heh. About the Truth part well I don't think he mislead the american people but he sure hasn't come out and said that I was given wrong information and I am sorry or something along those lines that is a huge mistake because it makes him look bad, heck Tony Blair did it why can't the President of the US. I do think they have mislead people about Iraq being connecting to 9/11 I think those are exageratted stories but that is me. And CMJ I agree with you we will find out where we are after next month it will be close again most likely, then I guess the debates will sort things out. I do think people should know who Kerry is now, I think he has shown he is a strong man who was brave, fought four country and has strong beliefs, it is a good start for him.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
About the Truth part well I don't think he mislead the american people but he sure hasn't come out and said that I was given wrong information and I am sorry or something along those lines that is a huge mistake because it makes him look bad, heck Tony Blair did it why can't the President of the US.

Bingo. If he had something like......

"I made a mistake, but I did so in good faith. But we're there now, so let's finish the job"

...I think alot of the country would be cool with that. I'd sure feel better about things.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah that is my feeling on the matter too, even though I wouldn't vote for him still :p but that is coming from a moderate democrat who is against him based more on other things. But I would have to admit at least that he did the right thing and he was telling the truth. Why hasn't he done this? I have no idea, is it because it make him look weak? Possibly but I truly don't know.

[CMJ]

He's definitely afraid of appearing weak - which the Democrats could explot. On the otherhand not addressing the issue looks worse IMHO.

And Carr, no offense, but you're no moderate(though you're not as far left as say...Sharpton). I still love ya though. ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'm so sick of this this garbage. He did not lie about taking us to war. Practically every intelligence agency on Earth thought Iraq had them. Clinton even thought he had them during his administation. Our own CIA director said it was a slam dunk.

Yes he did. I am sick of seeing that defense - the intelligence was weak and imprecise and some intelligence analyists (like Andrew Wilkie of the OWA of Aust as an example) said it clearly BEFORE the war WMD did not exist - even your own CIA director, George Tennant expressed doubts it has transpired. Wilkie in fact resigned in protest before the war - Bush's and Blair's words were stong and precise, without room for doubt. They knew the evidence was lacking because there were people who told them that and yet their language could not have been stronger.

In fact, one of the big points that comes out of investigations and commissions is that the intelligence agencies were not for this action, becuase they did not 100% believe WMD existed.

Other 'facts' like Iraq' buying uranium from Nigeria, used at the time for the case of war, were known to be false, yet were used anyway. Supposed links to terroists like Al-Quadia were known not to exist. Used anyway.

Intelligence failures and failure to listen to people who knew better, failure to tell the truth when they knowingly knew otherwise.... Bush, Blair and Howard were told the truth, yet they chose not to listen - that all summed up sounds like a lie to me. I could go on and vent my disgust that these three for longer but I dont have the time today. I cant wait to vote Howard out later this year.


Did WMD exist at one time? Of course, the USA had the reciepts. They sold some of it to him. What happened to them? Well, they are gone now and some in the intelligence community knew this. Where did they go? In the main destroyed before 1998. I would guess any traces remaining were removed in the 6 years after this point.

Ha. Nice hijack of your own thread Mark :)


Back to the convention, Kerry has come out of it well. His speech really was good stuff, with some excellent sound bytes. I can see where some of his campain messages will be and they are the obvious, but good ones. I expect however, he's still keeping his powder dry for October - swinging voters dont make up their minds now, they do it close to election date.

He has however, set a good framework for the party to work with. Quite professional. The Bush administration would have to know Kerry's going to make this at the very least, a close contest.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by CMJ
He's definitely afraid of appearing weak - which the Democrats could explot. On the otherhand not addressing the issue looks worse IMHO.

And Carr, no offense, but you're no moderate(though you're not as far left as say...Sharpton). I still love ya though. ;)

LOL Well I might be a little liberal, I think its more because of stuff like the environment that make me that way but I am glad you think I am not Sharpton left :p

[Jedieb]

I saw Obama and Kerry's speeches while I was on vacation. Both were great. Kerry probably gave the speech of his life. I missed the Band of Brothers film that introduced him as well as Cleland's introduction. It was the most pro-military speech I've ever seen at a DNC. He did a great job of delivering it and it looks like the speech was well received by most.

Next year, I hope the Networks go back to televising all 4 nights of both conventions. It's boring, and there's no suspense, but it's how each party lays out its platform and the candidates make their case to the American people. It's too important to get passed over for banal sitcoms and craptacular reality TV shows.

[The Man in Black]

So he's riding the coattails of Band of Brothers now, eh? Hello jingoism!

[CMJ]

Originally posted by The Man in Black
So he's riding the coattails of Band of Brothers now, eh? Hello jingoism!

No...HIS band of Brothers. Like the guys he served with. :p

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah he has been doing that for a while, which I don't blame it, they are his friends and he did a lot of heroic deed in Vietnam. Although Spielberg directed the movie which I find interesting.

[Jedieb]

The term "Band of Brothers" sure as hell wasn't coined by Spielberg or the series. It's a common phrase among vets. It's one you get to use when you actually have the testicles to serve. Maybe Bush will use "Drinking Buddies" or "Band of Barhoppers!" ;)

[The Man in Black]

Originally posted by Jedieb
The term "Band of Brothers" sure as hell wasn't coined by Spielberg or the series. It's a common phrase among vets. It's one you get to use when you actually have the testicles to serve. Maybe Bush will use "Drinking Buddies" or "Band of Barhoppers!" ;)

Haha, if you think that it was at all commonplace before 2001 and that Kerry put it in his speech to appease the people who are fans of the St. Crispin's Day speech, you are full of crap.

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Letterman joked about that he said he liked Kerry's band of brothers was was going to bring up all his drinking buddies on the stage of the RNC heh.

[CMJ]

Latest Zogby analysis....

**********************

AUG. 2, 2004

John Kerry got his convention bounce. But it is a modest one and it comes with caveats.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll, taken during the Democratic convention, shows John Kerry ahead in 13 of the 16 battleground states we track. That is his biggest lead -- in terms of the number of states -- since Zogby began conducting twice-a-month online polls for WSJ.com in late May. Moreover, his lead is greater than the margin of error in five of the states (including Pennsylvania), up from four states just before the convention. And Mr. Kerry took back narrow leads in Florida and West Virginia.

That just about covers the good news for the Kerry camp.

Here's the math: To analyze the Zogby numbers we start by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battleground poll will vote for the same political party that they did in 2000. President Bush begins our calculations with 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry with 172. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the White House.

Next, we add in the electoral votes from the latest poll, regardless of the margin of error or spread between the candidates. The 13 states that Mr. Kerry leads control 146 electoral votes, while Mr. Bush's three states have a total of 31 votes. The bottom line: In the Electoral College, Mr. Kerry would beat the president 318 votes to 220.

That is a solid margin but -- despite a week of attention at the Democratic National Convention -- it's only the third best showing Mr. Kerry has gotten in our battleground analyses since May. (He was in a position to get 322 votes in our July 12 poll and 320 votes on May 24.)

Mr. Kerry also has done better in earlier polls in terms of the number of states where his lead is greater than the poll's margins of error: He now leads by more than the margin of error in five states worth 63 electoral votes. In the July 12 poll, he led by such a margin in six states that control 80 electoral votes.

President Bush expanded his lead to five points in the key heartland state of Ohio, coming up just shy of the margin of error. And he regained a slim lead in Nevada after it had turned blue in the prior poll.

[Jedieb]

Haha, if you think that it was at all commonplace before 2001 and that Kerry put it in his speech to appease the people who are fans of the St. Crispin's Day speech, you are full of crap.
Grab a clue, he's campaigned with those guys before. And 'Band of Brothers' is a phrase that you could hear bandied about at VA halls for decades before this. If you'd actually served you'd know that. Nice try, but you're swimming in your own crap. And acknowledging that the term came from Shakespeare while simultaneously trying to imply it's obscure is pretty lame. Because we all know how obscure and ignored Shakespeare is. :rolleyes

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Because we all know how obscure and ignored Shakespeare is. :rolleyes

Its obscure enough to John Q. Public, that's for sure.

[Pierce Tondry]

On the one hand, Sanis has a point.

On the other hand, Marcus will not be happy until America, everyone in it, and everything positively associated therewith, is bombed into a smoking crater and Australia annexes the charred ruin remaining.

On the one hand, Kerry and Edwards are far too milquetoast to put forth an effective campaign, IMO.

On the other hand, I think I'm becoming a conservative. Whoa.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
On the other hand, Marcus will not be happy until America, everyone in it, and everything positively associated therewith, is bombed into a smoking crater and Australia annexes the charred ruin remaining. You're trolling. Stop. Marcus has stated that he wants Kerry to win. I'm failing to see how you're equating this with an apocalyptic wish upon the States.

I don't think that you bothered to watch the speech. I'd hardly classify it as meek.

You might want to also consider the economic realities the Democrats have. The Republicans have a huuuuuuge amount of money to work with. I think the figure is at least twice as much. Wait until October. Things should get more interesting.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You might want to also consider the economic realities the Democrats have. The Republicans have a huuuuuuge amount of money to work with. I think the figure is at least twice as much. Wait until October. Things should get more interesting.

I'm not sure, but I think Morg and I discussed this - Kerry keeping his powder dry until October, until it really matters. I suspect he'll come out swinging late, jsut when swinging voters make up their minds. It's the way modern elections are run. Kerry will know he cant outspend the Repubicans, so he'll wait and do enough to stay close enough.

What I saw of Kerry gave me belief he can win the Presidency. Agreed, October will be facinating

[Pierce Tondry]

Marcus has stated that he wants Kerry to win. I'm failing to see how you're equating this with an apocalyptic wish upon the States.

Yeah, that's an exaggeration which I apologize for. Marcus comes off strongly anti-American with 90% of his random comments on such subjects. I see it as a nonspecific venomous attitude that I get tired of and sometimes spout off about. But I'm no prince myself. No hard feelings, I hope.


I don't think that you bothered to watch the speech. I'd hardly classify it as meek.

I didn't say anything about any speech. I spoke of the men themselves. They don't strike me with any sort of strong vibe, don't stand out, don't feel characterized in any particular way.

As for speeches, I don't trust them in general. Most speeches are emotionally stirring. They are written with that in mind after all- stir up the crowd, get them excited, tell them about your ideologies and how those beliefs will do good. I'd rather examine what a politician has done than listen to a speech about what he will do.


You might want to also consider the economic realities the Democrats have. The Republicans have a huuuuuuge amount of money to work with. I think the figure is at least twice as much. Wait until October. Things should get more interesting.

I'm inclined to think Republican money will make a bigger impact because Bush is the incumbent. Not only does he have a sizeable accumulation of wealth from his presidency and all the perks that go therewith, he also does not have to spend lots of cash to defeat John McCain again. Iraq and Afghanistan have petered out as issues, even if they'll likely reappear again I don't think it will be as strongly. And to top it all off, the economy is recovering and that's a key point.

Long story short, I'm foreseeing no shift in the status quo.

But anything can happen.

As a side note, I laughed at Jon Stewart's characterization of the Democratic Convention as a dance party. It kinda seemed that way. :)

[CMJ]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

*******************
Bush Insists His Administration Seeking 'new Ways to Harm Our Country'
The Associated Press
Published: Aug 5, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

AP-ES-08-05-04 1228EDT
************

I don't mean to make fun, because I've been known to mis-speak at times(who hasn't?), but I busted out laughing when I read this off the wire.

[Jedieb]

Time to change my sig..... :lol :lol :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL I bet Letterman and Leno had a field day with that.

[Jedieb]

Dissapointing job numbers were released today. Economists were expecting 200,000-300,000 new jobs but the figures came in at only 32,000. And the previous month's jobs numbers were revised downward. The Kerry camp is going to have a field day over the weekend with these numbers.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Also about Bush mispeaks he seems to do that a lot, maybe he needs a telepropter or something, Letterman runs one like once a week, the one that comes to mind was when he was introducing some girl and he said "She is an east Texas girl and so am I." I just laughed really long on that one.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Dissapointing job numbers were released today. Economists were expecting 200,000-300,000 new jobs but the figures came in at only 32,000. And the previous month's jobs numbers were revised downward. The Kerry camp is going to have a field day over the weekend with these numbers.

I think that the jobs numbers would be even worse if it were not for two facts :-

1) What consistutes a job has been narrowed, ie, it used to be a certain amount of hours per week / amount you earned. Now, it's something like 1 hour, that's it, your classified as employed. With the market shifting to a lot of casual work and full time job stats not highlighted as they once were, you have some voodoo economics that makes the job figures look dandy.

2) Drop outs from the work force

I'll use myself as an example here. I'm not retired, or disabled, or left the country, yet I do not count as unemployed, despite the fact I have not had a job in nearly two years. I try to make ends meet by trying to get my own business going. It's damn hard and I really have to wonder some days where the next dollar comes from.

In australia, your termed unemployed if you do not work one hour a week AND you successfully claim ofr unemployment benifit. I also can not possibly fit into category two as my wife earns too much - I am barred from benifits. Hence, as far as the governemtn is concerned, I am NOT unemployed. The situation is I believe similar in the USA.

Now, as I am trying to get my own business going, I have become one of the millions around the world who have 'left the workforce' and hence are not even counted in unemployment statistics anyway.

Nice.

Thence, I can say with some confidence that the real unemployment is a good deal higher. 5.7%? Rubbish. Double it.

I wonder then, if the economies are genuinely growing? I'm not so sure I believe the stats. To me, things are going backwards, or where really goign to go for a Japan style recession that lasts for a decade.

[CMJ]

While I h ave n o doub t the real unemplyment figure is higher than 5.7% I'd b e shocked if it 11.4%. I'm thinking it's probab ly in the mid 7's somewhere.

[Jedi Master Carr]

This subject hasn't been brought up but what about the horrible attack adds on Kerry. The Swift Boaters for Truth. These guys are lying saying Kerry shot himself and stuff liket that. One of the guys came out and said it was all lies. How can they do this? And Bush doesn't even apologize and denounce them that really gets me mad about this. And it has been revealed that a big backer and friend of Bushes is the one behind this fiancially but I think it is Karl Rove who is the one really behind. Rove did the samething to Mcain back in 2000. I hope this hurts them, I hate smear tactics like this from either side.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
This subject hasn't been brought up but what about the horrible attack adds on Kerry. The Swift Boaters for Truth. These guys are lying saying Kerry shot himself and stuff liket that. One of the guys came out and said it was all lies. How can they do this? And Bush doesn't even apologize and denounce them that really gets me mad about this. And it has been revealed that a big backer and friend of Bushes is the one behind this fiancially but I think it is Karl Rove who is the one really behind. Rove did the samething to Mcain back in 2000. I hope this hurts them, I hate smear tactics like this from either side.

what did you expect? It's just another lowlife example of what the neo-cons will do to stay in power. I am very hopeful this will backfire spectacularly and if I have it read right, with the SBfT guys havign their story cut out from under them, it will.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well it puts Bush's record on the table as well and his record just looks bad. I am glad Kerry is fighting back. I don't think Mccain thought back hard enough until that debate and at that point it was too late.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well it puts Bush's record on the table as well and his record just looks bad. I am glad Kerry is fighting back. I don't think Mccain thought back hard enough until that debate and at that point it was too late.

The fact that people KNOW McCain was smeared unfairly works for Kerry too. Makes it easier for open minded voters to work out what's going on.

It is pretty evil though, to produce such smear campains against two veterans who served their country well. It does seem however to be a dangerous ploy by the Bush camp because, as you say Bush's record will be dragged in and it dont look too good.

[CMJ]

Latest Zogby analysis of the Electoral College

***************************

AUGUST 23, 2004 [Return to Battleground Poll]
At first glance, John Kerry's numbers look even better than they did during the Democratic Convention. But his lead may be more fragile than it seems.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll, President Bush musters a lead in just two battleground states. The other 14 states in the poll go to Mr. Kerry, giving him his biggest lead -- in terms of the number of states -- since Zogby began conducting twice-a-month polls for WSJ.com in late May.

If these results were to play out on Election Day, Mr. Kerry would score an easy victory. But there are a lot of caveats to consider. First, let's run the numbers.

To analyze Zogby's results, we start by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battlegrounds poll will vote for the same political party that they did in the 2000 election. That gives Mr. Bush 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry 172 votes. A total of 177 votes are up for grabs in the 16 battlegrounds; a candidate needs 270 to win the White House.

Adding the 152 votes from the 14 states that Mr. Kerry leads in the latest poll gives him a total of 324 electoral votes. (That's his highest total yet in our analyses of Zogby's polls, topping the previous high of 322 electoral votes that he had in on July 12.) Mr. Bush's two states have 25 electoral votes and give him a total of 214.

Still, there are a lot of reasons to view Mr. Kerry's lead with caution.

For instance, Mr. Kerry's lead narrowed in five states since the Aug. 2 poll, moving inside the margin of error in two relative strongholds, Michigan and Minnesota. Mr. Bush increased his lead in Ohio, moving outside the margin of error for the first time since June.

All told, Mr. Kerry's lead is outside the margin in just three states -- Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington -- and the president in just Ohio. If one considers only those results that are outside the margins of error, Mr. Kerry would cling to a lead of just 211-209 -- with 118 votes still up for grabs.

In two crucial states -- Florida and Missouri -- Mr. Kerry's lead is tiny -- less than a percentage point. If both of those states, which have moved back and forth between the candidates over the course of Zogby's polling were to go Mr. Bush's way in the end, Mr. Kerry's lead would shrink to 286-252.

Finally, in five states, the Massachusetts senator leads by fewer than three percentage points. If all of those states went to Mr. Bush on Election Day, the president would win the election 274-264.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Man this is going to be close unless the Republican convention hurts Bush. It could if there is a lot of protesting.

[Charley]

The only way a protest will hurt is if they shoot the protestors. Thats about all that protests really matter.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well if the protests become violent then it will hurt Bush. The 68 protests in Chicago hurt the democrats that year. Some historians say it cost Humphries the election.

[Charley]

Doubtful.

Violent protests destabilized the unified voice against the war back in Febuary & March of 2003. If the protestors get violent, they'll shoot themselves in the foot.

All depends on who's provoking the violence.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That isn't what political analyst say, Bill Schinder from CNN said that if there are violent protests in NY it will hurt Republicans like it did in 68 because it shows the public that Bush is a divider not an uniter and it will turn some away from him.

[Jedieb]

Both sides will try to spin the inevitable protests their own way. The RNC will say the protests are being sponsored by the DNC and the Dems will deny it. I don't think the DNC or the Kerry campaign have to any organized effort into protests. Bush mobilizes liberal activists just as well as he does his religous base. These people don't need Kerry or McCulife telling them to protest. Plus, if you want to hold your convention in one of the most Democratic and liberal cities in the country, then you better expect to pay the price. Rove and company were expecting a 9-11 lovefest and a pacified Iraq to make thier convention shine. Neither of those 2 things are going to happen.

I expect Bush will get a small bounce. If you look at the numbers for winning incumbants, Bush is in serious trouble. Over the last few elections winning incumbants at this stage of the race all had approval ratings over 50% and left their convention with double digit leads. Bush isn't going to get either of those. Almost every Electoral tracker out there has him trailing Kerry. Worse, he's not polling well with undecideds and independents.

Unless things change dramatically, he's going to lose. A dramatic change is a distinct possibility. Kerry could sigh and condescend the way Gore did in his debates and hurt himself. But everyone knows what the 800lb gorilla is, an election terroist attack. An attack will most likely not effect those voters who've already made up their minds. But what it will do to the undecided and independents is anyone's guess. They'll either rally around the President, or blame him. I simply have no idea who the country will respond.