NationStates Jolt Archive

After the DNC when we expected to all hear three days of rehashing the convention it got pre-empted by a big news story. A Terror Alert with specific targets named and security deployed. Pretty soon we discovered that this intel turned out to be three years old, but it had done it's job. It killed any momentum.


Today, just when we expected the news to be all about the Bush speech and to rehash the convention - what do we find?

Clinton in hospital.

A hurricane.

A hostage crisis.

And the RNC relegated to the sidelines.



Well, at least they both got nailed right afterwards. Evens things up. The fact that it's Clinton of all people causing them problems again must be pissing off a few Bush/Cheney strategists ....

Isnt it funny though that these stratagists arent making up wild theories as the Democrats did after the DNC? Oh, that hostage thing in Russia .....it was faked!!! they knew the hurricane was coming for weeks!!!! and that clinton heart thing.....it's fake!!! Thank God the GOP does not pull the same stuff the liberals do. And by the way.....a bounce IS underway.

Isnt it funny though that these stratagists arent making up wild theories as the Democrats did after the DNC? Oh, that hostage thing in Russia .....it was faked!!! they knew the hurricane was coming for weeks!!!! and that clinton heart thing.....it's fake!!! Thank God the GOP does not pull the same stuff the liberals do. And by the way.....a bounce IS underway.

That made no sense what so ever..lol

OH I know you to well. Of course you remember. I was just making a mockery of your claims that the terror alert level was raised for political reasons after the DNC. For a liberal like you ( when Bush is ahead, the Republicans control Congress , the Senate, the Governorships, the Number one cable news show, the number one radio talk show, the supreme court, the mayorships, and state legislatures) now is not the time to be laughing.

Whatever..... :rolleyes:

OH I know you to well. Of course you remember. I was just making a mockery of your claims that the terror alert level was raised for political reasons after the DNC. For a liberal like you ( when Bush is ahead, the Republicans control Congress , the Senate, the Governorships, the Number one cable news show, the number one radio talk show, the supreme court, the mayorships, and state legislatures) now is not the time to be laughing.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.. and I don't hear no fat lady singing.

Also, no one made up that they broke with the terror story and then it turned out to be 3 year old Intel..It happened. I don't know what the motive was.. but I can surely guess.

So you to remember your theory......and you are right, the basic premise of this thread is wrong. The polls are not in yet and this thread is saying that a hurricane, a bloodbath in Russia, and a former President's health problems have changed them. they are not in yet! It is never over until that fat lady sings.

So you to remember your theory......and you are right, the basic premise of this thread is wrong. The polls are not in yet and this thread is saying that a hurricane, a bloodbath in Russia, and a former President's health problems have changed them. they are not in yet! It is never over until that fat lady sings.

You miss the point. Bush should be all over the news. He's not because of all of these other stories. I believe that is all my husband was saying. Not that that Bush would not get a bounce, but that the normal coverage one would expect from cable news etc for Bush the day after the end of the convention is not happening. That was the point.

So you to remember your theory......and you are right, the basic premise of this thread is wrong. The polls are not in yet and this thread is saying that a hurricane, a bloodbath in Russia, and a former President's health problems have changed them. they are not in yet! It is never over until that fat lady sings.


I'm not saying that this is changing polls, just that the convention got shoved out of the news. Which it largely has.

Momentum is a powerful thing in politics. Pushing the hype out of the spotlight dampens that. This does not say that a bounce did not occur, just that a chance to really build on it may slip by.

I quote:
"your bounce has been pre-empted"

"Well, at least they both got nailed right afterwards. Evens things up"

and this was not meant to say that Bush's bounce would be negated? come on. surely you read this.

I quote:
"your bounce has been pre-empted"

"Well, at least they both got nailed right afterwards. Evens things up"

and this was not meant to say that Bush's bounce would be negated? come on. surely you read this.

Negated? No.

Perhaps limited? yes.

But hey ... if you really want to tell me what I meant (instead of perhaps asking for clarification if it not clear to you) well you go right ahead. ... clearly you know better than I do what I meant.....

well, I assume what you said is what you meant.

quote:
"your bounce has been pre-empted"

"Well, at least they both got nailed right afterwards. Evens things up"

"I'm not saying that this is changing polls"

what did you mean?

well, I assume what you said is what you meant.

quote:
"your bounce has been pre-empted"

"Well, at least they both got nailed right afterwards. Evens things up"

"I'm not saying that this is changing polls"

Is that the same as saying the polls will change? You said that is not what it meant. what on earth was meant if not that?



Which part of "limiting momentum" needs to be explained to you?

so you are saying it will not change polls it will just change polls. I see.

by "limiting momentum" or "pre-empting" the bounce, or evening "things out" you are saying that the recent news coverage of other events has disadvantaged the President's poll numbers in some way. Yet you continue to insist "I'm not saying that this is changing polls"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The idea of a convention is to build excitement. Elections - especially close ones - are often won or lost on a swing in momentum. When you have the opportunity to build momentum you want it to keep going. To stay in the spotlight. To keep your issue pounding away at the opposition.

When you get momentum building after a convention that seemed to go fairly well for you, you want to keep the issues you raised in the news. Keep your opposition answering your charges instead of putting you on the defensive.

Now, when you get bumped from the news - that can kill momentum. Can interrupt (or pre-empt) the bounce.

That does not mean no bounce occurs. That does not mean that it negates all of the effects of the convention.

However it may limit the bounce. It may slow momentum. It puts you OUT OF THE NEWS. This term, in the media, is called "pre-emption".


Is that clear enough for you?

Yes , I now understand. But you are saying these news events have altered the polls which is different than what you posted earlier. that's what made me confused. the part about "I'm not saying that this is changing polls" . But now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. It is actualy a pretty interesting idea. and no, I was not being obtuse, I was just confused about the inconsistancy that existed before.

All this having been said. We look at this stuff that has moved the Republican convention off of the front page and the thing that is most attention getting is very likely those events taking place in Russia.

Now, looking at what it is, and who the players there are, who is it most likely to boost more ?

Bush ?

or

Kerry ?

Neither because it really is not the sort of thing to effect poll numbers. Maybe Bush if the pundits really push it , I really don't think it will change any minds about anything.

Negated? No.

Perhaps limited? yes.

But hey ... if you really want to tell me what I meant (instead of perhaps asking for clarification if it not clear to you) well you go right ahead. ... clearly you know better than I do what I meant.....
Wow, ten points above kerry, and bush has to share the news with Isloma-facist murdering children, a hurrican (what, is the supposed to be news?), and clinton's big macs catching up to him. What did Kerry have to share the post convention spotlite with? Oh yeah, the other John Kerry.


Kerry Fled

This is the third time I've said this.. but apparently people don't seem to want to hear it. Michael Dukakis had a 16 point bounce coming out of the DNC convention in 1988. It's called a "bounce" because they usually don't hold. The idea is to get the bounce then build momentum, because you can't count on the bounce. You ever wonder why things are called what they are? Sheesh!

This is the third time I've said this.. but apparently people don't seem to want to hear it. Michael Dukakis had a 16 point bounce coming out of the DNC convention in 1988. It's called a "bounce" because they usually don't hold. The idea is to get the bounce then build momentum, because you can't count on the bounce. You ever wonder why things are called what they are? Sheesh!Keep saying it, it is not true. Every candidate gets a bounce out of convention, except Kerry? Downplay it all you want, kerry's swift boat has a hole, and is sinking. Glub Glub Glub.

I would say the news items (russian school siege, hurricane) that pushed the convention of the front page were more important news items that were given the level of importance they deserved.

I would say the news items (russian school siege, hurricane) that pushed the convention of the front page were more important news items that were given the level of importance they deserved.

Yes and Clinton as well. That is what Zep was saying and I agree. It just wasn't great timing for Bush.

Yes and Clinton as well. That is what Zep was saying and I agree. It just wasn't great timing for Bush.

Yes, it was unfortunate for Bush, but I feel it is more unfortunate for the children and their families in Russia and for the people bracing for a hurricane to hit. To see some people take some sadistic joy that such issues took the edge of the Republican convention makes me sick.

Yes and Clinton as well. That is what Zep was saying and I agree. It just wasn't great timing for Bush.
Must suck for Kerry to know that Bush managed a bounce with all that going on. And by the way, why again is there a war on terror? Because militant Islamic terrorists murder babies, and liberal apologist defend them.

No it was unfortuante for Bush, but I feel it is more unfortunate for the children and their families in Russia and for the people bracing for a hurricane to hit. To see some people take some sadistic joy that such issues took the edge of the Republican convention makes me sick.

Believe me, that was not Zep's intention, I think he found given the same thing happened to Kerry it was sort of irony. We are horrified at what happened to all those children in Russia, we have two kids of our own. To us, in many ways this is worse then 9/11, they were all children. We don't make light of that, I assure you.

Keep saying it, it is not true. Every candidate gets a bounce out of convention, except Kerry? Downplay it all you want, kerry's swift boat has a hole, and is sinking. Glub Glub Glub.
Number 1, the fabrication that there was a "baby bounce" was created by Newsweek and was because they looked at a poll that was taken before Kerry's speech. Make no mistake, Kerry got a big bounce. Take a look at this (from http://www.electoral-vote.com/graph.png) :

http://www.electoral-vote.com/graph.png

I'm sure even you can follow pretty colored lines. See where it says DNC (Democratic National Convention) starts? See how even after the first Swift Boat Veteran for Complete Lies (SBVfCL) ad buy Kerry's electoral projections jumped way up (and Bush's fell)? That's called a bounce.

You may want to distrust the "news" source that convinced you there was no bounce. Of course the propogandists have to so wrapped around their fingers that all you can do is raise your arm and say Heil!

Lucky for your guy there are at least a few people out there with no morals or any decency that have a chip on their shoulder. Fortunately for Bush, since he has nothing else, he has a group of people that are willing to look the American people straight in the eye and spew absolute eyes. Fortunately for Bush he has brainwashed followers like you to hear only what he sells and will refuse to take some time to investigate the truth. That's why he's ahead, for now. As you can see, that generally doesn't last long. Kerry will come out ahead again soon.

Don't worry if you find what I'm saying disconcerting. You can go back to your Faux News blanky and your Limbaugh contact high and warm yourself with the hollow reassurances that Bush is going to win any time you want.

Time magazine poll shows a bounce of 11 points with Bush leading 52% to 42% for Kerry. The premise of the thread is outdated. The bounce came after all...

No Bounce for Kerry. 'nuff said.

Have a nice day.

Kerry Fled

Believe me, that was not Zep's intention, I think he found given the same thing happened to Kerry it was sort of irony. We are horrified at what happened to all those children in Russia, we have two kids of our own. To us, in many ways this is worse then 9/11, they were all children. We don't make light of that, I assure you.

Thats the way the thread came across. I respect you and your husband too much to believe that was the intention. I am pointing out it may not have been posted in the best light.
And knowing some of the people that post on here I think this topic will degenerate into mudslinging that I would find highly offensive and belittling of the people involved in these incidents.

Kerry bounce: -3
Bush bounce: +9

enough said.

and if it were the other way around you can't say you would'nt be bragging and bursting with Pride. You would think Kerry was the clear winner. Am I wrong?

No Bounce for Kerry. 'nuff said.

Have a nice day.

Kerry Fled
You. Are. A. Moron.

what's with the insult? I guess you have no facts to show or informed opinions to present.

I rest my case.

Kerry bounce: -3
Bush bounce: +9

enough said.
Oooh, look I can make up numbers too...

Kerry bounce: +19
Bush bounce: -25

Wow that really feels good. No wonder you twits like doing it so much.

what's with the insult? I guess you have no facts to show or informed opinions to present.
For facts, see my above post (it's the one with a pretty picture and a link for outside references). Take note, you can't use yourself as a reference.

You. Are. A. Moron.

Please refrain from flaming another player. It's against the rules. Attack the argument, not the player.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Oooh, look I can make up numbers too...

Kerry bounce: +19
Bush bounce: -25

Wow that really feels good. No wonder you twits like doing it so much.

My numbers were sourced from Gallup and Time , both respected and widly used polling agencies that are decades old and proven to be accurate. Who is the "twit" now?

My numbers were sourced from Gallup and Time , both respected and widly used polling agencies that are decades old and proven to be accurate. Who is the "twit" now?
Provide a source so I can go look myself you twit.

twit.

Stop the name calling, if you do it again I will have to issue a warning on your nation. Warnings lead to deletion. Please stop! I will not ask again.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Who is the "twit" now?

I'm handling this.. flaming back because you get flamed is still flaming, keep that in mind.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

first off I resent your name calling. Second, your "source" measured the bounces by electoral vote which is truely a strange thing I have never seen anywhere else.....and third:

http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=12565

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

No reason to get upset! Really, I am just trying to make an argument using facts. You may disagree but I can't understand why I must be called so many names!

magnatoria is a new member. I used to get a little rowdy too. thanks steph.

Also I think he's just trying to get under our skin, because I found his arguments pretty funny, and in a ridiculous sort of way. Though I may have misinterpreted it. If I did, I'd be glad to have a political argument, but somehow I bet he'll demonstrate even further the infamously republican mudslinging strategy. And I'm no democrat! My whole family is republican, extended and all, and I'm just a decidedly liberal advocate for honest representatives, who happens to disagree with Bush's policies - especially towards American Civil Rights, which he's several times sought to limit rather than enhance as I wish he would, most notably with the Patriot Act, though that is only temporary, given he isn't reelected and allowed to extend it. Kerry said he supports the patriot act, but hesitantly, and his policy wouldn't be to extend it at all. Also I very much am bothered by Bush's little theocracy, calling references to the Bible rather than the constitution when making up his policies, by his attempted undermining of feminism, and by the Republican Party's very underhanded (And absolutely ingenius) techniques thusfar in the election term. Mudslinging doesn't even begin to cover it.

So if he was just mimicking the republicans in a sort of ironic way, I say that was the most well-played-out post I've seen in a while.

So you have political differences with Bush. That's good, you will get along with most people here.....but I do have a question....were we talking about the polls? yes we were. And my sources say Bush got a nice bounce while Kerry got a negetive one. That is ( was? ) what we were posting about on this thread. does anyone have anything to say about that?

first off I resent your name calling. Second, your "source" measured the bounces by electoral vote which is truely a strange thing I have never seen anywhere else.....and third:

http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=12565

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

First off, Of course you resent it, that's why you reciprocated. I don't feel bad in the slightest.

Second, the electoral vote is ALL that matters and that site (and plenty of others that I will list below) use - get this - polling data to come up with their electoral vote prediction.

Third, the gallup poll site is blocked to non-subscribers so I can't comment on it. I find it tough to believe you actually have a Gallup membership, so I doubt you're looking at anything other than the headline. Arguments using headlines don't impress me.

And all the polls from polling report show up-swings from the polls before the DNC up to the end of August. So this -3 number is again from your butt.

The electoral vote predictor sites I mentioned (and forgot the 1st time):
www.electoral-vote.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-polldatapage.htmlstory
http://www.electionprojection.com/
http://www.thenorthstarnetwork.com/news/othernews/182491-1.html
http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

Do you need more?

I am a member of gallup as I can see you are not. I can also tell you are not an avid follower of polls. You know nothing of the theory of rolling average. you just do not want to see that Bush is now ahead. that's ok. I am leaving now any way. And please, stop with the insults. It will eventualy get you hurt.

also...the negetive 3 is from gallup which I guess you can't see and the poll data on pollingreport is clearly marked their as being gathered on august 31 to september 2nd ( during the convention)....

I am a member of gallup as I can see you are not. I can also tell you are not an avid follower of polls. You know nothing of the theory of rolling average. you just do not want to see that Bush is now ahead. that's ok. I am leaving now any way. And please, stop with the insults. It will eventualy get you hurt.
Someone needs a hug!

also...the negetive 3 is from gallup which I guess you can't see and the poll data on pollingreport is clearly marked their as being gathered on august 31 to september 2nd ( during the convention)....
How convenient.

the hug has been taken care of, but I must say, I am disapointed in this particular thread. Why is it that people cannot stay on topic? the topic is that the bounce was preempted and would not occur. well, it has, one way or another, it has. so, where do we stand. Blathering on about opinions forever? no. We have already reached a sound conclusion. right?

Bush bounced like Kerry and all his followers like to claim Kerry did. Kerry came out of his convention flatter than mila jovavich.