No news is good news this time.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ll-kerry_x.htm

Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters'
impressions of John Kerry but failed to give him the
expected bump in the head-to-head race against
President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll
finds. (Related item: Poll results)

John Kerry campaigns Sunday in Bowling Green, Ohio.
By J.D. Pooley, Sentinel-Tribune

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led
Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent
candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point
and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken
the week before the Boston convention.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of
error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763
likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first
time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972
that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.

USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller
picture of what's happening.

A Newsweek poll taken Thursday and Friday gave the
Democratic ticket a 49%-42% lead. Over three weeks, that
reflected a 4-point "bounce" for Kerry, the smallest ever in
the Newsweek poll.

Among registered voters in the USA TODAY poll, Kerry and
Bush each had 47%. Bush was up 4 points, Kerry unchanged
from the pre-convention survey.

Analysts said the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely
polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds
are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically
a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation"
of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the
Gallup Poll.

"In a race this tight, the polls are going to be all over the place,"
said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director. "Most
importantly, voters now clearly trust John Kerry more than Bush
to lead and defend America." [more wishful thinking]

But Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said
"history doesn't bode well" for Kerry. Since World War II, the
three challengers who have unseated presidents held clear leads
after their conventions.

Democratic leaders have expressed delight about the convention,
which showed a united party and emphasized national security.
Those surveyed gave the convention and its candidate high marks:

Kerry's acceptance speech Thursday was rated as "excellent" by
26%, a more positive response than Bush got in 2000. A 44%
plurality said the Democrats were "about right" in criticizing Bush;
30% said they went too far.

Views of Kerry's personal characteristics and leadership improved;
views of Bush didn't change much. Bush's edge in handling terrorism
was shaved to 12 points from 18. In a switch, Kerry now is trusted
more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, by 51%-
46%.

Kerry's military service is seen as a plus. A 52% majority says it
would help him be an effective president. More than one in four
say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

You don't know nothing about stats.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
news
No news is good news this time.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ll-kerry_x.htm

Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters'
impressions of John Kerry but failed to give him the
expected bump in the head-to-head race against
President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll
finds. (Related item: Poll results)

John Kerry campaigns Sunday in Bowling Green, Ohio.
By J.D. Pooley, Sentinel-Tribune

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led
Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent
candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point
and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken
the week before the Boston convention.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of
error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763
likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first
time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972
that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.

USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller
picture of what's happening.

A Newsweek poll taken Thursday and Friday gave the
Democratic ticket a 49%-42% lead. Over three weeks, that
reflected a 4-point "bounce" for Kerry, the smallest ever in
the Newsweek poll.

Among registered voters in the USA TODAY poll, Kerry and
Bush each had 47%. Bush was up 4 points, Kerry unchanged
from the pre-convention survey.

Analysts said the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely
polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds
are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically
a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation"
of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the
Gallup Poll.

"In a race this tight, the polls are going to be all over the place,"
said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director. "Most
importantly, voters now clearly trust John Kerry more than Bush
to lead and defend America." [more wishful thinking]

But Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said
"history doesn't bode well" for Kerry. Since World War II, the
three challengers who have unseated presidents held clear leads
after their conventions.

Democratic leaders have expressed delight about the convention,
which showed a united party and emphasized national security.
Those surveyed gave the convention and its candidate high marks:

Kerry's acceptance speech Thursday was rated as "excellent" by
26%, a more positive response than Bush got in 2000. A 44%
plurality said the Democrats were "about right" in criticizing Bush;
30% said they went too far.

Views of Kerry's personal characteristics and leadership improved;
views of Bush didn't change much. Bush's edge in handling terrorism
was shaved to 12 points from 18. In a switch, Kerry now is trusted
more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, by 51%-
46%.

Kerry's military service is seen as a plus. A 52% majority says it
would help him be an effective president. More than one in four
say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Bart Senior wrote:

Do you really expect to change anybodys mind by talking like Ann
Coulter?

When you refer to the Democratic National Convention as the "Spawn of
Satan Convention" you just sound like a kook.


Anyway, for the more, shall we say, empirically minded, here's some
handy summaries of the state of the presidential horse race:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...-frameset.html
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

And, Bart, you really should read this from PJ Orourke before you
continue to embarrass yourself in public:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/orourke

(NOTE: all the articles above are from the right side of the political
spectrum (except for Polling Report which is non-partisan as far as I
can tell) . This cheerfully provided as a public service to the ASA
community; one could easily get the impression from reading this group
that all conservatives are idiots. Just doing my part ot dispel that
notion.)


--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Why he doesn't just sound like a kook....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Bart Senior wrote:

Do you really expect to change anybodys mind by talking like Ann
Coulter?

When you refer to the Democratic National Convention as the "Spawn of
Satan Convention" you just sound like a kook.


Anyway, for the more, shall we say, empirically minded, here's some
handy summaries of the state of the presidential horse race:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...-frameset.html
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

And, Bart, you really should read this from PJ Orourke before you
continue to embarrass yourself in public:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/orourke

(NOTE: all the articles above are from the right side of the political
spectrum (except for Polling Report which is non-partisan as far as I
can tell) . This cheerfully provided as a public service to the ASA
community; one could easily get the impression from reading this group
that all conservatives are idiots. Just doing my part ot dispel that
notion.)


--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Thanks for the links, Walt.

Walt wrote:
Anyway, for the more, shall we say, empirically minded, here's some
handy summaries of the state of the presidential horse race:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...-frameset.html
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Carefuly, there... the Wall Street Journal is a notorious purveyor of
liberal socialist spin!

Anyway I am pleased to see that Kerry at least has a chance, barring of
course the cancelling of elections due to elevated terrorist threat warning.


And, Bart, you really should read this from PJ Orourke before you
continue to embarrass yourself in public:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/orourke

O'Rourke is a genuine conservative, and is also quite funny. I don't
think he was ever a hippy or a liberal though, even if he did write
National Lampoon articles with titles like "How To Drive Fast On Drugs
While Getting Your Wing-wang Squeezed, and Not Spill Your Drink."

It's not surprising that P.J. O'Rourke doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh
(although IMHO Rush can be funny once in a while) and equally surprising
to hear him desribe Rush as "shouting.' Rush is usually whining in a
high-pitched, fat-guy-with-no-balls voice.



(NOTE: all the articles above are from the right side of the political
spectrum (except for Polling Report which is non-partisan as far as I
can tell) . This cheerfully provided as a public service to the ASA
community; one could easily get the impression from reading this group
that all conservatives are idiots. Just doing my part ot dispel that
notion.)

I don't think that anybody who knew what "conservative" means would
mistake very many of the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders for conservatives. But
I can see why they've tried to abscond with that label, "caveman fascist
whacko" doesn't have that certain ring to it.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Thanks for the links, Walt.

Anytime.


Anyway I am pleased to see that Kerry at least has a chance, barring of
course the cancelling of elections due to elevated terrorist threat warning.

I'm not paranoid enough to think that the elections will actually be
cancelled, but you can bet your Johnson 18 that they'll be some kind of
fear-inducing event right before the election.

Recall 1984 (the election, not the book) where on the eve of the
presidential election there was a sudden "crisis" that the Soviets were
arming the Sandinistas with MIGs. Yes, this faded away in the cool
light of day (there never were any MIGs) but it was on many peoples mind
in the voting booth that Tuesday. Granted Reagan almost assuredly
didn't need the help, but the point is they did it anyway.

So, this is hardly a new play in the playbook. The question is whether
it'll be too worn out after a summer of false alarms based on three year
old information. Sure, lots of people will fall for the same ploy over
and over again, but how many times can you cry wolf before you're
credibility si shot?

... this from PJ Orourke...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/orourke

O'Rourke is a genuine conservative, and is also quite funny. I don't
think he was ever a hippy or a liberal though, even if he did write
National Lampoon articles with titles like "How To Drive Fast On Drugs
While Getting Your Wing-wang Squeezed, and Not Spill Your Drink."

Right. He was never a hippie or a liberal. When he took over as editor
of National Lampoon in '73 (or so - the seventies are still kinda fuzzy)
the magazine lost much of it's initial anarchic briliance and tended
much more to frat-boy humor. By '76 or '77 all the talent had gone over
to work on Saturday Night Live and the magazine was a shell of it's
former self. He's not entirely to blame, but I date the demise of the
magazine as starting the day he took over as editor.

Anyway, I've always found PJ to be one of the least funny of the
original NatLamp crew, and I read him for much the same reasons that he
listens to NPR. But, credit where credit is due, his 1964 yearbook
parody was truly a work of genius.
See http://slate.msn.com/id/2093398/


--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Walt wrote:
I'm not paranoid enough to think that the elections will actually be
cancelled, but you can bet your Johnson 18 that they'll be some kind of
fear-inducing event right before the election.

Do you mean a real event, or a lot of caveman fascist whacko shrieking
about terror terror terror? Reminds of James Thurbers short story "The
Day The Dam Broke."


Recall 1984 (the election, not the book) where on the eve of the
presidential election there was a sudden "crisis" that the Soviets were
arming the Sandinistas with MIGs. Yes, this faded away in the cool
light of day (there never were any MIGs)

Hmm, now I might be inclined to disagree there. At that point in time, I
was riding around off the coast of Nicaragua listening to the back-then
Navy Sec John Lehman's lies about what we were doing there. In any
event, we stopped several Russian freighters, including one that we
almost had to ram and had the gun mount aimed right at her bridge, and
found MIG parts on two occasions. Was this a violation of Nicaragua's
sovereignty? Probably. In view of the Ortega brother's track record
though, I'm no more sorry about that than about the military ops in the
Gulf of Sidra, off Libya, which I also took part in.

One of the nice things about being in my position (oil king, calibrat'n
tech, qualified EOOW but standing a much lower watch) is that I got to
be on the "prize crew" detail which sounds like something out of
Hornblower books. It was my job, in the event of boarding other vessels,
to go along and check out their engineering plant. So I got a better
look at what actually happened.

The Sandinistas never got their hands on any operational MIGs. Were they
collaborating with the Russians to get some? Yes, they were, I can attest.





... it was on many peoples mind
in the voting booth that Tuesday. Granted Reagan almost assuredly
didn't need the help, but the point is they did it anyway.

Well, from where I was, I did not see any of that campaign's publicity
efforts. From Sec'y Lehmans utterly mendacious pronouncements, I can
imagine.


Right. He was never a hippie or a liberal. When he took over as editor
of National Lampoon in '73 (or so - the seventies are still kinda fuzzy)
the magazine lost much of it's initial anarchic briliance and tended
much more to frat-boy humor. By '76 or '77 all the talent had gone over
to work on Saturday Night Live and the magazine was a shell of it's
former self. He's not entirely to blame, but I date the demise of the
magazine as starting the day he took over as editor.

I wasn't that aware of what was going on back then, and couldn't afford
to get every issue anyway. It is surely the case that the NatLamp
started going downhill at some point along in there. Is PJ to blame?
Dunno, and and while I happen to think some of his stuff is funny, some
of it is pretty gross too. But he's not one of the whacko witch-burners
at least.

DSK

I don't think there will be any terrorist event before
the election. Terrorist's vote liberal. They would not
want to give GWB a boost, since GWB's strong
point is how American's feel GWB is the right man
to fight terror. It is more likely to happen after
the election.

Vote against terrorists, vote for GWB.

"Walt" wrote
DSK wrote:
Thanks for the links, Walt.
Anytime.
Anyway I am pleased to see that Kerry at least has a chance, barring of
course the cancelling of elections due to elevated terrorist threat
warning.

I'm not paranoid enough to think that the elections will actually be
cancelled, but you can bet your Johnson 18 that they'll be some kind of
fear-inducing event right before the election.

Bart Senior wrote:
.... GWB's strong
point is how American's feel GWB is the right man
to fight terror.

He's also the right man to lock up Americans indefinitely with no due
process, Bush is the right man to wear a fancy uniform waving "Mission
Accomplished" banners while a year goes by with American troops under
fire, Bush is the right man to read a story to preschoolers about goats
while terrorists are flying over the U.S., Bush is the right man to
insist that American citizens have no right to know how their gov't
forms it's energy policy, Bush the right man to reduce enforcement of
environmental regulation so the waters we sail become increasingly
noxious, Bush is the right man to run up a huge national debt, Bush is
the right man to hand a tremendous subsidy out of your pocket to the
pharmeceutical industry, Bush is the right man to hand over your tax
money to churches, Bush is the right man to cut funding for harbor
security...

All the above is 100% true, Bart... it really happened. Remember reality?

DSK

This is extremism by definition...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
I don't think there will be any terrorist event before
the election. Terrorist's vote liberal. They would not
want to give GWB a boost, since GWB's strong
point is how American's feel GWB is the right man
to fight terror. It is more likely to happen after
the election.

Vote against terrorists, vote for GWB.

"Walt" wrote
DSK wrote:
Thanks for the links, Walt.
Anytime.
Anyway I am pleased to see that Kerry at least has a chance, barring
of
course the cancelling of elections due to elevated terrorist threat
warning.

I'm not paranoid enough to think that the elections will actually be
cancelled, but you can bet your Johnson 18 that they'll be some kind of
fear-inducing event right before the election.