Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

In all fairness, Harry, we must allow for the possibility of several things:

1) The average Bush supporter couldn't figure out the TV schedule, and
missed the debate completely.

2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.

3) The average Bush supporter wanted to vote by computer afterward, but
couldn't figure out where the keyboard plugged in because it was dark, and
hard to see under the hoods of their cars.



Well, I really was shocked by how bad Bush was. I expected Kerry to win
on debate style, but I thought Bush's low-key, "winning" personality
would help the President. It wasn't in evidence. Bush seemed to run out
of things to say before 20 minutes had gone bu, and...and this is really
important, he looked as if he couldn't handle the very direct and
straightforward questions being put to him (and to Kerry) by Lehrer.

I've always been concerned by Bush's inarticulateness. It should be the
kiss of death of a politician. I've read that many Americans like Bush
because "he talks just like we do." If that is true, we have truly been
taken over by the stupid.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?