Friday, October 29, 2004

Michael Moore's Talking Points

Transcript (which is very short or was it Drudge-abbreviated?) of OBL.

Zogby Refuted

After Zogby getting a +5 Kerry result in his tracking poll on Thursday, ABC/WaPo shows Bush gaining two points after being up only one yesterday.

As confidence intervals would dictate 1 in 20 poll results being wrong, I posit that Zogby got one in his polling yesterday, but his Democrat leaning forced him to interpret it much less professionally than he normally would.

Zogby's going to be one of the losers in this election.

U. S. Electoral College

Using this calculator shows Bush winning 278-260 if he wins the exact same states he did in 2000. The is an extremely dubious assumption because it assumes that the exact same dynamics are in play this year.

That is just not the case. 9/11/01 is the major landscaper, but there is also a behavior adjustment by both parties to their demonstrated weaknesses in 2000 and their opponent's demonstrated strengths. As a Republican, the GOTV effort is a prime example.

The CW is wrong because they don't recognize this, and in this sense the MSM bias will work againtst them. The battleground in 2000 was Florida with OH and PA getting lumped in. All the coverage in about these three states.

The real battlegrounds this year are the upper Mid-West - Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. All of these states went for Gore. This represents 44 EC votes. Here is where the election will be decided.

As proof that the CW is perservating on 2000, John Zogby states in a Daily News column today, the Kerry will win. He shows Bush up in Michigan and Minnesota (27 EC votes) and losing in OH (20 EC votes). Explain how Bush nets +7 EC votes and loses when he starts with an 18 EC vote lead?

The story of the Bush win will center on the upper Mid-West.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Mystery Pollster: Likely Voters V: More Gallup

We're basically trying to get a read on the electorate as of the day that we're polling," said Jeffrey Jones, managing editor of the Gallup Poll, "not necessarily trying to predict what's going to happen on Election Day itself.

No kidding.

A possible way to tamp volatility would be to poll several days after significant political events. This would reduce any event-inspired exuberance and give a more accurate reading. This is something I examined earlier in the month

Unfortunately, I see no way to project the Election Day likely voter without asking the same types of questions Gallup does. Past behavior and verbal indications of future behavior is all we have. And it is always less than 100%. (See stock market prognostication and weather forecasts.)

A lot of the complaining is just dissonance-soothing exercises.

More interestingly is the October Surprise which comports perfectly with the last minute bombshell that sways voters. If it did not have an immediate effect it would cease to be done. Why did CBS want to run the milk carton explosives story so close to the election?

Quinnipiac University PA Results

QC has Bush up 49-47 amongst LVs.

Just like the NJ poll, QC shows the difference in DK/NA between RVs and LVs breaking heavily towards Bush.

I'd be more confident that this is a canary in the coal mine if it were appearing across polls and not just QC.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Carly Simon

I see Bush responding to this piece not as one that could damage his election prospects (as seems to have been the rationale for running the piece) but as one that demonstrates yet another reason that John Kerry is unfit for command.

Even better, is this:

"If it could ever be established that the explosives disappeared while Mr. Hussein was still in power..."

If something cannot be established, should it run above the fold?

NJ Polling Results (Again)

Quinnipiac has the likely NJ voters tied at 46-46.

And the same break for the undecideds has occurred. (See this.)

When RVs are asked, they break 45-41 for Kerry with 12% DK/NA. (Should NA be included in any voting poll?)

When LVs are detemined, the 12% DKs drop to 6% with 5 of the 6 percentage point difference going to Bush! (And 95% of each candidates voters say their mind is made-up!)

I wonder if the Democrat candidate is a Democrat state is treated as the incumbent?

And I wonder if the remaining 6% will act like the other 6%?

Provisional Ballots

"In 2000, even before the new federal law, about 100,000 people cast provisional ballots in Ohio under the state's existing procedures, representing about 2 percent of all 4.7 million votes. Ninety-one percent of the ballots were held valid.

Election law specialists said there might be as many as 200,000 provisional votes under the federal law in Ohio alone.

In Florida, there was no provisional voting in 2000. In the 2004 primary, about 2,000 provisional ballots were cast there, and 60 percent were held valid."

So for statewide elections, 9% are fraudulent? In a Democrat primary, 40% are?

How many that are fraudulent don't get caught?

But more rationally, these provisional ballots could only swing an election if it is close, as I suspect any voter fraud would do.

So why are the Democrats fighting so hard to make provisional ballotting so easy?

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Making Sense of It All?

Seeing Zogby go decidedly Bush whilst Rasmussen and ABC/WaPo flip to Kerry is perplexing.

In trying to make sense of these, I looked at this summary and was struck by the LAT and the aforementioned ABC/WaPo polls. One has a tie amongst LV and the other shows Kerry +1.

Given ABC/WaPo changed their LV screen last week and the LAT is the West Coast bastion of Lefty-biased journalism, I posture that both polls are deriving methodology that comports with the political CW that the electorate is evenly divided. (Support ?The president was characterized as a uniter and a divider by 48 percent each.)

By starting with an assumption of an evenly split result, both polling organizations are doing their best to develop a LV model that would take the registered voter results and get a subsample of LVs that shows an even split

Why? Because the RVs are showing an advantage for Bush. When this was a typical result favoring Democrats, SOP had LV screens increasing Republican representation. Now that RV is consistently showing ahead, why wouldn't polls show Bush's lead widening using LV screens?

On November 3rd, the pollsters will either be exposed or will be validated. Unfortunately, guessing is not proof of expertise.

Monday, October 25, 2004

ABC/WaPo's tracking poll covering Fri-Sun has Kerry up 49-48.

CNN/Gallup has Bush up 51-46.

Sure looks like somebody is wrong esp since both polls cover the same days.

However, both are within the MoE, and are therefore, statistical ties.

We want enumeration that can be carried on the 3rd tablet, but all we have is something with the precision of a 6-10 point window. Not too great when their are only 100 points to use.

Prez track 2004

Zogby has Bush surging and Rasmussen has Kerry ahead in each of the last three days' worth of polling.

I wonder if the DNC got out the word to make sure and answer the phone?

Zogby International

An interesting nugget is the undecideds went from 6% to 4%. CW says these should have gone to Kerry, but it looks like they went to Bush.

Is this the first pebble of an avalanche in Bush's favor?

Friday, October 22, 2004

Poll by party identification

The latest Detroit News tracking poll for the state of Michigan has Bush up 45.9-43.3 amongst registered voters.

As this recent season of polls has shown, the party identification breakdown is important. In 2002, Michiganders, self-identify as 49% Democrats and 43% Republicans. The tracking poll shows 40.9% Republicans and 40.3% Democrats.

There is a very obvious conclussion that can be drawn. The tracking poll is clearly under-representing Democrats.

A mitigating factor may be involved though. In 2000, the same percent of Michigeese self-identified as Democrats, but the percent of self-identified Republicans rose from 37% to 43%. Is there a siginifciant trend towards Republicans in Michigan? The only sure answer will come on November 2.

One thread (cord? cable?) that Republicans can grasp (firmly? self-delusionally?) is the breakdown of Strong/Weak Democrat or Republican identification. The S/W Democrat combination stays constant at 34%. However, the Strong D designation decreased by two.

For the Republican S/W combination, it was 24% in 2000 and 30% for 2002. A very striking (clearly loaded descriptor) increase. Strong R went up two and Weak R went up 4.
Where did these 6% come from? Most come from Independents as the decrease of 4 flowed directly into the Republican self-i.d. Democrats and Independent Republicans remained the same from 2000 to 2002. (The other 2% look like rounding error.)

False hope or further intuition justification?

Thursday, October 21, 2004


Yesterday, I was struck by an intuitive feeling that Bush will win. Now I know "intuition" is not a strong rationale for a male to put forth so I will use the poll internals to present a more socially-accepted, less emasculating position.

Blacks appear to be giving double the support to Bush this time around. (Didn't he do well with them in Texas?).

Women support Bush, as do men.

By a margin of 20 percentage points, pollees say Bush will win the election.

Using these figures, how can any other conclussion be drawn?

There could be a self-fulfiling prophecy on Election Day but it won't be the one concocted by the MSM.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Likely Voter Light

This poll is very interesting in that it shows Bush swamping Kerry, if the traditional likely voter model was applied This would comport with my disbelief that Amercians would vote in a Commie sympathizer.

Other than the Democrats claiming people who did not vote in 2000 will really, really, really vote this time, what proof is there to discard the traditional voter model in favor of one that, coincidentally, favors the Democrat?

Also, what is the effect of those who didn't vote in 2000 voting netted against the likely voters who are "absolutely certain" they will vote who don't?


Mystery Pollster has a good write-up on the differing poll results for Ohio.

A very relevant point made is the results are in the gray area where the MoE figure could account for every result. (His most relevant point revolves around the incumbent rule.)

An important consideration which was not made, but subsequently done so by me in the comments section regards the polling days involved in each poll. The Fox poll is the only one that does not include any days prior to October 17. A perfectly dissonance-soothing explanation would consider the Fox poll the most up-to-date and therefore the most relevant.

However, with the dramatic movement in the three-day tracking polls of Zobgyand WaPo where over a day or two the race goes from Bush up to tied to Bush up leads me to conclude that the Fox poll could be less indicative of the current status of the race than my attempts at dissonance-soothing would suggest. (Hmmmmmmmmm. No Kerry up in these tracking polls? Maybe some soothing is still possible.)

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

NJ Poll

Quinnipiac has released their latest poll for NJ.

Kerry 49-45 LV. No surprise he is ahead, and he will likely win. But for the sake of discussion, I draw your attention to one of the internal numbers, specifically, the "trend" data.

Approximately 2/3 of the DK/NA break towards Bush. What the heck are the remaining DK/NA considering? Will they break for the very blue state candidate (@incumbent?) or towards the opposing party?

Regardless, Kerry would still get the state (Thankfully no complicating Electoral College to consider as the popular vote wins on the state level with some exceptions.)

Why One Must Travel Along the Political Continuum

A great summary of the flu vaccine problems without allusion to partisan crap. (I do not vouch for the comments though.)

As a person concerned about tort reform, and an MBA, I find #7 to be telling, but Mr. Drum gives enough choices for any person to find one that suits them well.

Why Can't the Pollsters Agree?

The blogosphere is way out front on this topic.

The long and short seems to be that an open market for polling data has led the various competing outfits to attempt to differentiate from each other at the margins.

To quote:
"The New York Times and CBS, on the other hand, include responses from all those determined to be 'likely voters', but gives some of their votes more weight than others depending on how they fit on a scale rating their likelihood of voting." (single quotes are mine.)

Simplicity would ask that each poll gives it raw data like this (page 4). However, the long and short has already covered this impediment to clarity.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Kudos to JMM

Bush is campaigning in NJ today. A New York Sun article puts forth the dueling position that the Bush campaign believes NJ is in play, and the opposition posits that the appearance is a headfake by the Bush campaign to get Kerry to waste time defending a state he will win. (Easily? By a nose? A W is a W for the Electoral College votes.)

My guess is Bush feels he has enough time before the election to go ahead and spend a day in a blue state. He'll get some TV time in the NYC/Philadelphia news market. It won't get win the Philadelphia vote or NJ or NYC, but it could get him some extra votes when looking to win the popular vote.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Bush Has the Momentum

Clearly, Bush regained the momentum he lost after the first debate and the wind-assistance of the MSM for Kerry.

I wonder if the MSM has enough integrety/fairness to say it though.

Scary Ads Take Campaign to a Grim New Level

Read closely. Most of this article deals with liberal 527s vs today's article.

With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making

I'd have liked to see an estimated break-even cost vs the rise in price from 1996. It means nothing without knowing what the break even cost is.

My favorite quote from the article is:

The government cannot force companies to make vaccines, however. Legally, of course, manufacturers are free to quit the business. But, Dr. Redlener said, "When there is a vital public health issue at stake here like protection against the flu, that's not good enough." The government, he added, "had an ethical obligation to work with manufacturers."

Kerry Team Demands Equal Time. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Geez, the NYT smears the Swift Boat Vets, and now the supramajority of Vietnam Vets who are against Kerry can't say anything about the possible travesty of a useful idiot ascending to the most powerful position in the world?

Importing Less Expensive Drugs Not Seen as Cure for U.S. Woes

Duh! Sometimes reading the NYT on Saturday is the only time to get a fair news article.

Now if the NYT started running these types of above-the-fold stuff on Monday ans Tuesday, I may take advantage of the 8-week 50% home delivery.

Friday, October 15, 2004

During the 2nd debate, I remember John Kerry looking into the camera and pledging not to raise taxes in response to a question from the ranks of the undecided on his promise to raise taxes only on those making more than $200,000 per year. One could even say it was seared – seared- into my memory.

I recently visited Senator Kerry’s website and read his pledge to “Restore the top two tax brackets to their levels under President Clinton.” (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html) As I was in neither bracket in 2000, I was curious what those income thresholds were.

I went to the IRS’s website and found the tax table for 2000. A married couple filing jointly would have been in the 2nd highest tax bracket with an income of $161,450. That is a far cry from $200,000 for the vast majority of Americans. (Obviously for someone with more than half a billion dollars it is inconsequential.)

While inflation has been fairly tame, I decided to give the Presidential challenger the benefit of the doubt and check the 2nd highest tax bracket threshold for 2003 in the event the inflation was, in fact, out of control and the threshold had increased to the level Senator Kerry promises to use. The threshold was $174,600.

No doubt, John Kerry looked into the face of America and told a whopper. Who checks these things for him? Dan Rather and CBS?

Kerry Lies but Not Enough to Matter

Mark Halperin and ABC believe this isn't worth examining, but how does Kerry's pledge to not raise taxes on those earning under $200,000 comport with his website's pledge to restore the top two income tax brackets to the Clinton Administrations' levels?

Lat I checked $161,450 for a married couple filing jointly in 2000 does not equal $200,000? Is this another fake but accurate statement? (And I am being generous in using the joint-filing number. For a single filer, the 2nd highest 2000 bracket begins at $132,600)

The 2003 Tax Table has single filers hitting the 2nd highest bracket at $143,500 and married-jointlys at $174,700.

I read an article in The New York Sun about The Guardian of London urging is Lefty readership to write letters to voters in Clark County Ohio.

Having foreigners attempting to influences our election is disturbing, but what I found more disturbing was Clark County sells their list of 85,000 registered voters for $25?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Wow! We have a national Do Not Call List to stop people from bothering us during dinner, story time, The Apprentice, but we allow the registration information of 85,000 people to be sold for $.00029 per name?


Can anyone rationalize the NYT op-ed page as anything less than a Moveon.org flyer?

I Love My Gay Daughter

The NYT coverage belies what Elizabeth Edwards says.

After faulting the Bush Adminstration for its positions on gay marriage, the article quotes Elizabeth Edwards as opining that the Cheney's response indicates a degree of shame.

If the Bush campaign was overblowing the situation, Mrs. Edwards made it personal.

This could have the same deletorious effect the NY Conservative party's emphasis on Mrs. Clinton's softness on terror had on Rep. Rick Lazio's chances. (USS Cole bombing, and the Clinton Administration's non-response, has since been shown to embolden Al Qaeda, but tell that to Lazio.)

Saddam Used Chemical Weapons on US Troops in 1991?


Do we know say Saddam also used WMD on US troops?

Does Clinton get implicated in the cover-up?

"...draws conclusions that are essentially the opposite of those of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, led by Dr. Lashof. That group reported to President Bill Clinton in 1996..."

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

The New York Sun

Another excellent example of investigative journalism by the Sun. They were on the V VAW assassination plot at the beginning of the year and on the Oil-for-Food story well before any of the MSM decided to pick-up the issue (and then quickly turn it to US companies and insinuations of Bush ties which turn out to be deceptions .)

As it has everything other doubt cast upon Kerry's military records, I worry the MSM is going [to continue] to ignore this.

Could this be the October surprise?

More Proof NYT Employees Don't Read Their Own Paper

(What do they read then? The Guardian?)

Mr. Stevenson reports that Kerry will pay for his Medicaid expansion by repealing the tax cuts/raise the taxes for those making more than $200,000.

In an article in the same edition of the NYT , the Concord Coalition estimates those cuts/hikes would raise $278 billion while generously placing Kerry's plan at $653 billion.

Is this the kind of unexamination ABC and Mark Halperin had in mind?


Kedwards tax "cuts" are really tax credits. (I wonder if that means those who have no tax liabilty will be able to claim these as "refunds" i.e. welfare payments?)

I am enheartened by the fact that Bush's deficits are caused by tax cuts and not by new spending programs. There is a good chance he won't get eveyone of them enacted and thus it will be less than the estimates.

However, any new spending program becomes a third rail and are always low-balled in costs.

Nothing in Life Is Free

Holman Jenkins is usually good for the latest talking points from whichever business/industry is being assailed by the MSM.

But occassionally, he states the truth. (And, yes, that means talking points are sometimes truth and not spin.)

And the vital truth is that healthcare is "free" to most people. It is why insurance pays for things that vast majority of people would not agree to pay for if it meant them paying for it.

Another problem related to the perceived "freeness" of health care is we pay the providers of this free service as if it were not free but extremely valuable.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Pension Promise No Guarantee of Security

WaPo Serves up the pension problem (without ever thinking someone retiring at 55 with $110K per year until they die is cause for comment.)

No company stock. No assumed rates of return which allow contributions to be skipped. And no pay-later concessions in collective bargaining.

Democrats Resort to Violence

I guess the labor unions have studied their political history and have decided to see if an oldie is still a goodie?


What I suspect is the reason to pull the column - insensitivity to a family that has suffered a horrible event- is the reason Mr. Steyn is right on.

As a culture that follows the Path of Diversity, we have become afraid to comment upon any event in which tears have been shed. Nevermind questioning the actions of the aggrieved - which Mr. Steyn clearly does.

It is his heresy that led to his column being spiked. It is insensitive to Mr. Bigley's loved ones, but it is an exaltation to live proud and die more so. Something antithetical to the PAth of Diversity.

Nuclear materials 'vanish' in Iraq - Oct 12, 2004

Don't you need to pre-suppose that nuclear materials were there before we disposed of Saddam?

Monday, October 11, 2004

The New York Times > International > Massive Liberal Bias in NYT?

A name that has popped up twice is Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr., Texas oil investor

I was intrigued that no party affiliation was assoicated with this Texan.

In this AM's piece, he was again mentioned without party affiliation, so it was off to see if a wealthy man made political donations.

I can not discern with exactitude but "Wyatt, OS Jr" comes up quite frequently, and the donations have gone to Democrats.


Earth Scorching Hindering Medicare Law

A fairly honest accounting of the problems - demogogery by the Democrats, lack of eldery advocacy group support.

New York Post Online Edition: Australia Is a W for W

Mr. O'Sullivan is not correct. The NYT had Howard's victory in yesterday's paper. Buried and not on the front page or on the same page as its Iraq coverage.

But I did catch it Saturday evening.

William Safire: How Bush Won Round 2

Hopefully, this unequivocal call by one of the two resident conservatives on the NYT op-ed page helps.

But I have concern that it is two days too late to influence the next go-round of polls. Those have already included two days of liberal interpretation of the debate.

(The WSJ is the only national dailies that has a conservative op-ed page and it does not run on the weekends.)

Sunday, October 10, 2004

George Will: Why America Leans Right

Coincidently, I just finished reading The Right Nation by Mickelthwait and Woolridge.

Will's synopsis stunk. (I'd have thought he'd be better as he occupies the preeminent conservative position in one ot the most influential dailies.)

Here's mine:

God and leave me alone. Either separately or in combination, this explains the conservative nature of our country. Our technological edge also derives from this as we don't look kindly on the gov't taking our money via taxes or impeding development via regulation.

Europe is the opposite. God is marginalized and the Nanny State takes care of everything. (Or purports to be capable of doing so.)

And just like military strength, Europe's excessive regulatory and tax policies will cause it to lag technologically. And to make it worse, the rest of Western nations are getting old fast. And what do old people do? Vote and vote for more free stuff.

M & G also acknowledge this.

What no one acknowledges is the Democrats want to be Eurpoean!

Saturday, October 09, 2004

NYT Public Editor and Founder of Rotisserie Baseball

Believe me, his founding of one of my favorite hobbies heavily biases me towards giving him the benefit of the doubt and in making his column a must-read.

He previously admitted to the NYT being biased, and it was music to my ears.

Now he admits he's voting for Kerry. Honesty, combined with the Rotisserie thing, only reinforces his must-read status in my opinion.

All said, it was not enough to stop me from cancelling my subscription to the NYT. I find it so biased towards the Left that I could no longer pay the premium to have it home-delivered (and from a former paperboy that says an awful lot.)

It's op-ed columnists are unhinged (Krugman, Ellipsis Queen, Herbert and Mr. Disreputable Sources) and it editorials lack intelligence.

That combined with most newspaper content being free, including the
NYT, I could not, in good conscious, continue to support this paper monetarily. (I am aware they derive something from my registration.)

FWIW, Kerry as the Boss article was damning for the Senator.

NYT May Never Understand

The reason Kerry will lose is his positions. His ability to speak clearly in a debates obsfucates his inability to take mature positions.

Whether it is a cognizance-assuaging blindspot or a willing misinformation campaign, those labelled "liberals" have lost on every major issue in America.

Unfortunately, the MSM consists of "liberals". At least those major dailies who publish on the weekends.

Kerry's Sister Shit on Them, but Still Aussies Go for Howard

This article is devoted to taking potshots at Bush, but also rationalizing why Aussies would vote for a pro-Saddam Removalist.

This will be the gist of the post-November 2nd coverage in the NYT. Just get used to it.

But here is it for the Europhiliacs if they want to try to understand.

Mr. Harris said whatever people thought about Australia's going to war - the vast majority were against it at the time - there was no choice now but to stay until the war was won.

Friday, October 08, 2004

MSNBC internet poll has 320K votes.

DNC did a very good job working this technology.

A couple minutes after and MSNBC has almost 29,000 votes 74% for Kerry.

At least this should work to kill internet polling.

Calm closing argument for Bush.

Not as excting as I'd prefer but I like my steak a little rare.

Kerry truly believes this stronger alliance idea.

Does he listen to what Chirac and Schroeder say in the press? Does he know anything about Oil-for-Food?

"Plan. Plan. Pla.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

Yikes! He made mistake appointing people. Clarke, O'Neill and who else?

I despise "win the peace" and I'm beginning to hate the word "plan". Maybe I'll go the way of the Brits and begin using "schemes".

"Not necessarily" be in power?

Last Q:

Give us some wrong decisions.

Ouch for Bush and Kerry can counter by attacking.

Gibson has done a good job but this question should not have been last.

Kerry gave a better answer, but does anyone doubt he'd fill the court with Badar Ginsburgs and Stevens?

Yikes. Bush didn't practice any USSC answers.

Supreme Court question. I like the question.

The answers may disappoint though, but at least it is uncovered ground this election.

Frozen embryos are still potential life despite Kerry claimimg they aren't. Which shows he doesn't understand.

But he can't as it violates Leftist dogma.

Bush started on principal then added he's the 1st to fund it. I believe he does understand but that answer was inconsistent.

He should say that private funding can do anything it wants. C'mon! Give the free market argument.

Great Kerry rebuttal. (Because I just made it!)

The feeling in your question? I know the morality?

But I am going to disregard it but it is an article of Leftist faith along with ANWAR.

PATRIOT Act (anti-Bush question)

Bush: same tools to fight terror also used to fight org crime...

Kerry: Folks concerned...People's rights been abused (Just repeat the question. It is less verbose and says the same thing.)

Gibson asked a tough follow-up on outsourcig.

Need some wood?

Bush clearly believes he has a plan to help with healthcare.

This top 2% tax hike can pay for all Kerry's goals?

Love the Orwellian names line. No doubt this question will be a killer for Kerry.

Excellent rebuttal to Kyoto, though.

Nice job remembering the name of the world is aggravted querier. (Kerry)

Bush is running down a list of SOTU programs.

He should have used the "energy comes from magic" line from Last Comic Standing.

An extremely unfair question to Kerry. And he answered it!

Bush I redux if he wins.

His campaign managers must be marshalling the troops to spin the questioner as rabidly anti-Kerry

A projected surplus and projected deficit. At least the trial laywer was honest by stating "projected."

God please stop him from talking about the 1%. I care more about me and my own. I live in Westchester, an extremely affluent area. I know there are those who are much better-off financially, but I have my own to worry about.

Ouch. Bush is killing conservatives by touting his spending ability.

He sounded strong and confident doing it though.

Kerry is on the defensive. Big Time.

Should have showed up and voted for it then (med malpract reform)

Bush is strong. Very strong. Amazingly so.

Wow. A very tough tort question. Amazing. So far the questions have been very tough and balanced. Gibson has done a good job selecting

Reimportation question.

Canada has 33 mm people looking for prescription drugs. US has 293 million. How long until the Canucks rebel and those interent providers go somewhere else?

Why no attacks since 9/11?

Kerry: not if but when...(no answer but he has Rather and Halperin on his side)

Bush: We have to be right 100%, they only need to be right once....Win in Iraq.

How is Kerry going to add 40K more military?

So Kerry's answer is to talk about generals who support him.

Great answer to Iran question

Bush hit a grand slam with the other countries aggravated with us question.

This is going to be nasty. Sanctions worked? Did this Commie fucker read the report or is he hypnotized by "for the children"? As in the NGOs crying about the Iraqi children when SH in power but mute when US does something about it?

Kerry is going to be tied-up with this format. He said, "Bush wishes" Is Kerry 10-years-old?

Bush looks much better. But there is still 80 minutes left.

And FWIW I thought this debate was domestic issues not Iraq.

Bush is naswering this very well. Krugman and Marshall will be screaming now.

Kerry is flunking the wishy washy question. Incoherent answer but ABC and CBS will be working hard to frame it otherwise.

Too wishy washy? Nice question to begin.

And my answer is "WMD"

"Not yet committed"? Are you kidding me? What the F*** does that mean?


Starbucks Hopes a Price Hike Perks Up Profit

The hike was $0.11 at the Starbucks I frequent. I could check the other four that are located witinh a block of mine, but I'm not that interested.

I wonder if Starbucks knows they could pass this increase on to their customers because the coffee is good and
caffeine is addicting (mildly so).

If mgt knows of the addictive qualities of its product, shouldn't some lawyer be trying to sue them for their profits?

'Pension Fairness Act'

Political expediency forces pols to do something against the most easily villianized - rich executives.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the execs at bankruptcy-declarings companies are not capable of rapacious action.

What I'd like to see, and maybe it is too above-board for pols, is a system where companies that offer a pension only offer a cash contribution.

A contribution that must be funded every year. No projected growth rates. No promises without funding. No stock in lieu of cash.

Jonah Goldberg on Kedwards and Iraq on National Review Online


Specific NJ targets

Here are the specific NJ towns:

"...reported the other districts were Fort Myers, Fla.; Jones County, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; and Franklinville and Rumson, both in New Jersey."

Iraq Disk Mentions U.S. Schools

My first analysis of this was here. It is remarkably cynical. As if The United States government was intentionally disseminating lies.

No further thought given with the exception of the growing belief that the Democrats are even worse than I thought.

This AM, a colleague mentioned he was anticipating the arrival of one of his co-workers in order to discuss the warning. This co-worker lives in a NJ town that was on the disk.

I wonder if this could make NJ realize that the party who deemed playing the skin flute of the governor as the major qualification to head their Dept of Homeland Security is not the one to keep them safer.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

AP/Ipsos Poll: Kerry Holds Small Lead Over Bush

Discouraging to see Kerry up 50-46 amongst LV.

RV has it tied at 47.

Whereas RV numbers had always seemed to favor Dems, we seem to be in an election where the RV favors Republicans.

It will be interesting to see how the campaigns do when the Fog of Debates clear.

Mystery Pollster: Why & How Pollsters Weight, Part II

Excellent revelation on Zogby's methods, which by default seem to favor Dems as he weights every POTUS poll by the 2000 exit polling data - 39% Dem and 35% Rep.

So not only do we have the option of a pre-9/11-minded candidate for POTUS, but we also get to see pre-9/11-minded polling.

MP brings up an excellent point. Zogby assumes party affiliation has not changed in 4 years. (See previous paragraph for a hint as to why this may be mortally faulty.)

Nevermind the assumptions necessary to use exit polls.

Why My Liberal Bro-in-Law Hates WaPo

...Because Mr. Bush chose to act, we know what capabilities Iraq did -- and did not -- possess...

As I have tried to drive hom to who'd listen

...What can't be known is what would have happened had Mr. Bush chosen not to invade. Here the new report suggests some answers. Saddam Hussein, it says, was focused on ending international sanctions, which were crumbling before the crisis began. Had he succeeded, he would have resumed production of chemical weapons and probably a nuclear program...

What I said earlier.

(The ellipses cut out some negative Bush points, but the title of the post who not conflate well if I had included those.)


The immediate gratification of reimporting drugs from other countries is a powerful force. No one loses in the short-term.

Pharmaceutical company pipelines will spit out whatever is currently there. So for a few years we'd still see new, and maybe innovative, drugs. However, once the pipeline is cleared, the assumptive position that drug development as usual will continue seems unexamined.

More immeditiately, how long will a country of 32.5 million people be able to support the drug habits of one with 293 million people?

Eagle-Eyed Hindsight

Off the top, no matter how rational any suggestion is (and my post's title says it all), this will redound to Bush's detriment.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions

Unfortunately, this was also the Clinton Administration's assertion. And the international opinion.

The report said American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service between 1991 and 2003 to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, including ricin.

Iraqi Intelligence Service maintained small labs for biological weapons productiona and this is not considered an active program?

Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr. Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

Can you say Oil-for-Food bribery and kickbacks?

Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

A Year is not a long time esp when the sanctions would have had to have been lifted after concluding Saddam did not have WMD. So while we fiddled and libs hid behind the cloak of no WMD, Saddam would have been restocking his WMD.

Can this be acceptable?

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Daily Tracking Poll Methodology (washingtonpost.com)

WaPo will be letting respondents identify themsleves as "likely". Sounds like something that could basically be a poll of registered voters.

WaPo Daily tracking Poll

Conducted jointly with ABC.

This could relegate the other polls to the back-end of the news reports. (And it should demonstrate that paying Zogby for info is foolish.)

Shows Bush up 6 on a three-day rolling average. Up a point from yesterday's 3RAVG.

Prior Knowledge Network Poll

Had Kerry up 43-28? Remarkably similar to the Edwards/Cheney result?

I wonder if KN used the same respondants?

Plus, there is a 7% MoE. That means there is a potential 14 percentage point swing in the results.

In this poll, Edwards had 41% and Cheney had 28%. The 13 percentage point difference is within the MoE!!!!!!


CBS News | Uncommitteds Tab Edwards Winner | October 6, 2004?07:52:39

The sample size is 178 "uncommitted" voters. How many people needed to be contacted to arrive at 178?

A back of the envelope calculation would start with the number of uncommitted voters? Is 20% too high? If not, then a quick figure would be 890.

My guess is Knowledge Networks used an operational defitnion that would easily define a voter as "uncommitted".

The organization could not have used a much smaller ficure as the number of respondants would quickly move into the realm of impausibility. 4% undecided would mean 4450 respondants were polled.

None of the major polls contain this many respondants. Most hover in the 1000 range over three days of polling (350 per day).

The last debate occurred less than a week ago. 5 days to be exact.

This smells like GIGO.

The New York Times > Opinion > Africa Earned Its Debt

Thank Gaaaaaaawd that the one honest African politican was found and put in charge of the United Nations!

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Chris Matthews just compared Edwards to a water pistol while Cheney was a Howitzer.

Asked if the liberla press saw it enough to put a Cheny W above the fold

Cheney won. Edwards is more telegenic, but he seemed to be clearly out of his depth.

Cheney is not giving a closing argument.

Sounds less rehearsed esp the stumble on healthcare.

A sober statement.

Edwards closing argument.

Says there is no hope anymore. A distinctly negative characterization.

I don't feel this way. I enjoy my children and hope they see the smiles and feel the love. Who doesn't do this for their kids?

Sounds like Edwards knows a lot of people who do this? Is this you?

Conservatives are cringin as Cheney lauds the Medicare expansion.

Do the Canucks want us to take all their gov't controlled drugs? Will the Canuck gov't allow this exportation?

Bush can't unite those who don't want to be so. And the Dems clearly chose that path.

"Deeply divided" is CW. Does it go out the window if Bush wins with 50+% - the first time that would have happened since 1988!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz on the educational statistics.

Good point on training Iraqis in lieu of adding more US troops.

Nice job with a specific "flip-flop" question.

Flip Flop sounds so childish when used in a serious debate as Edwards did.

Kedwards can't answer the question bc he was too quick to make the Saddam-9/11 talkingpoint.

Cheney just bought himself a nice puff piece on his background.

Serious answer by Cheney on VP qualifications.

Edwards stands up for Kerry qualification. A decent response.

Will Edwards be attacked by the 4th Estate for his smirking and other facial expressions?

Not to knock preventative care, but if it is pushed, more ailments will be discovered i.e. malignant skin growths. As more diagnostics are used, cost goes up.

Not that I disagree with preventative care but to make pretend it is cheap is silly.

Ever wonder why everyone in the world didn't die of skin cancer?

Cheney hit the Edwards loophole!

Nice answer on tort.

The three strikes is silly but with only three weeks to election, details and rationale may be moot.

Blah answer on Edwards being part of the problem with cost of medical care.

ObGYN is certainly a attempt at women. And in combo with the gratitude for Edwards kind words about his family could be a winner.

Gotta ask Cheney about gay marriage.

Judicial fiat is the only answer.

Kedwards don't want to talk about this either.

Pointing out Cheney's gay daughter humanizes Cheney.

Use consitutuion to divde country? Roe v Wade anyone???

Bingo! Zinged Kedwards on missing the tax credit extension votes.

Will the jobs loss line hold up?

Domestic policy time. Should be good for Edwards but he did miss the extension for the child tax credit vote a couple weeks ago.

Good job Gwen on the Israeli question.

Cheney's record is a very weak response. I can't believe he is doing this.

While I believe Edwards no-show record, it was non-sequitor esp since Cheney opened as if he'd address Halliburton

factcheck.org, but with 30 seconds, OK

Halliburton, 3rd ref at 9:40. This one will have to be answered.

Edwards again comes back to AQ-Iraq

9:42 Halliburton reference but not specific to question

"Terrorist" is a catch-all phrase now.

Edwards took the bait. He glared at Cheney while he spoke.

Edwards just interupted Cheney.

The 1st flagrant rule breaking!

Cheney is looking at Edwards while Edwards looks at Gwen

Gwen asks tough questions of Edwards. "Naive."

9:26 PM. 1st Halliburton reference.

Can't stand-up up to HoDo how can you stand-up to Al Qaeda?

Wow. You weren't there to vote for that!

Cheney opens the front on Kerrey's record. Cannot obscure!

Edwards stumbled on the the Tora Bora explanation....

Non-sequitor with the Saddam-AQ connection.

Very good style rebuttal by Edwards.

Dang, Cheney listened to the conflation and tried to answer.

1st question was a conflation of three different pieces of info. Bad job, Gwen.

These silly groundrules discussion is a waste of time as no one will hold a gentle breaking of them against either candidate.

Pension Failures Foil 6-Figure Retirements, Too. Or Wage Gap Amongst Retirees Closes

A sympathetic NYT article about people who are "rich". Wonders never cease!


Michelle Malkin

I thought the same thing Mrs. Malkin's reader did. I'm crazy and an idiot. I don't read Dowd though.

NAMI should relax, and I say this despite the fact it may attack Democrats.

The 1st post-debate polls:

Newsweek RV Kerry 49-46 sans Nadar

Zogby LV Bush 46-45

USAToday/CNN/Gallup LV tied 49-49

CBS/NYT LV tied 47-47

Pew LV Bush 49-44

ABC/WaPO LV Bush 51-46

While JMM concludes
"Kerry got a big bounce out of the debate", I contend, he got a small "bounce". The question is whether or not it is the type of bounce one would see when a brick is dropped or whether it is one where a superball is dropped.

As CW claims "undecideds" break against the incumbent (and the sitting President's party doesn't win the Senate in mid-terms elections either!), I see anything with high single digit "undecideds" as leading to a Bush W.

If 75% go to Kerry and Bush has 48%+, then the 25% of "undecideds" would push Bush over 50%. This is, of course, massively caveated by the Electoral College.

Monday, October 04, 2004


Shows a tied race, 47-47. However, the party id breakdown has 29% Republican and 34% Democrat.

The previous collaboration had 33% Rep and 31% Dem. Could a 4% decrease in (R) and a 3% increase in (D) explain it?

The previous poll had a 49-41 Bush lead.

A back-of-the-envelope figure adds the 4 to Bush and subtracts three from Kerry and we come to 51-44.

The Kerry Spot on National Review Online

ABC/WaPo going to have Bush up 5.

This would be the kind of news that would break the Kerry momentum if there wasn't a VPOTUS debate tomorrow. Both bits will be competing for the news cycle.

If Cheney does well, and there is little reason to believe he'd be anything like 43, then this could be effectively into something positive.

And if it is, the Friday night debate will relegate this to the dustbin.

The Democratic Nominee: An Invigorated Kerry Courts Ohio, and Some Swing Voters Are Taking a Harder Look

Some equals two. At least that is how many are quoted in the article.

My guess is both will be swayed back to Bush, then to Kerry and back to Bush by month's end.

The swaying stops after the debates and post-debate polls coverage.

The Kerry campaign has the momentum of the 4th estate behind it. As a result, the sinking feeling Bush supporters have won't go away until the media waters become unmuddied from the debate coverages.

This should occur around the 21nd of October. The debate and the post-debate polls will run the newscycles until then.

Let me lead you to water.

Sept 30 is the 1st debate. October 1 is the actual reporting on it with commentary. The 2nd and 3rd are all commentary. On the 3rd through 5th or 6th, polls come out. Each one is the main news of that day.

Unfortunately, debate #2 is Oct 6th. This overlaps with the 1st post-debate polls.

The 2nd post-debate polls will hit the 4th Estate on the 9th thru the 12th. Each leading the news coverage.

The 3rd debate is on the 13th and its post-debate polls hit on the 16th thru 18th. A couple days of poll leadership runs us to the 21st of October.

At this point, the campaigns will begin to lead the news cycle. Basically 10 or so days for either campaign to get his message out.

As of now, Evan Thomas et al make that last neutral comment de facto Bush.

I wonder if the 4.5th Estate, or the blogosphere, can influence that?

Mystery Pollster: The Newsweek Poll

A must-read blog. Democrat leanings be damned!

Evan Thomas Was Right

The Newsweek poll is in the CW. A methodological mess.

Why didn't they just poll at the unemployment offices?

Sunday, October 03, 2004

CNN.com - Poll puts Bush, Kerry about even - Oct 3, 2004

Interesting to see party id.

On the plus side, maybe we will see the Bush campaign hit a lot harder with the VVAW. (Of course Senator Kerry wants to meet with North Korea. He has a lot of xperience meeting with Asian Communist dictators from his VVAW days.)

Teresa Heinz only because I think she is a loudmouth who believes she is brilliant because people kiss-up to her to get money.

Kerry's vote against 1st Gulf War when 41 got the international coalition.

His liberal voting record period.

Kerry Notes'

An interesting development. While I believe the Kery campaign would have been desparate going in, I am having a hard time believeing they'd have been so desparate as to flagrantly cheat.

Aren't the networks insistence on focusing on Bush enough?

The New York Times

I have the misfortune of only reading NYT news coverage on the weekend as my sources of conservative news- WSJ, NYSun - are weekday publications. National Review goes to an apparent one-bone skeleton crew ont he weekends to boot.

As a result, I am captive of the NYT POV/spin/emphasis, but I read this yesterday in the NY Daily News on the Editorial Page (Sorry no link yet):

President Bush collecting himself...driving home several points he let slip away.....Kerry is delusional if he thinks calling some high-minded Iraqi summit is going to fast solve anything....on one hand insists global competition vis-a-vis Iraq but ....strictly bilateral ...North Korea...is a man who is, um, contradicting himself...Well, that's what Kerry does: contradict himself again and again...instant polls and most of reader mail...Kery stomped Bush real good...Let the smoke clear, though...Kerry is not w/o a legit message or two, but, by and large, he is refutable.....essentially no more tangible than "I can do it beter than you whatever it is you're doing"

Ouch from the liberal counterpart to the NYPost.

Domestic Issues (To Be) Pushed to Front of Campaigns

I added the parentheticals for technical accuracy.

I am not a fan of Adam Nougorney. He was a flack for Hillary Clinton during her Senate campaign, but this seems to be either straight forward propaganda or an example of intellectual defiviency.

Newsweek magazine poll conducted after the debate showed Mr. Kerry in a statistical tie with Mr. Bush. Earlier Newsweek polls had shown Mr. Bush with a clear, if modest, edge.

"Statistical tie" means it is within the MoE. A "modest" lead would imply it is within the MoE. How is one a tie but the other a clear edge?

Rupture in U.S. Episcopal Church

Regular gay agenda piece. At least this seems somewhat newsworthy.

The World Doesn't Disqualify Candidates on Intellignece

Not a jab at Bush, but at Moktada al-Sadr, the true puppet.

Another couple points.

1st, he is losing and trying to stop before uter defeat.

2nd, Ahmad Chalabi is working closely with this dufus? The "neocons" had better cut bait on Chalabi if this is true.

Political Vice Squad: Liberal Media Cognitive Dissonance: The NewsWeak "Poll"

Internals show a 36/34 split for Dems vs a 39/30 split for Reps in the comparison poll.

Also, the poll was conducted Friday evening and Saturday AM. Anyone home on Friday?

Seemingly, it was also only done in the PST and MST.

If these hold-up, it will be more proof of a media conspiracy and/or Evan Thomas validation.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

MSNBC - The Race is On

Interestingly, Newsweek only polls registered voters. This type of poll almost always favors the Democrat candidate. (I concede that a poll or two had shown Bush eeking ahead in this measure also).

Also, I have found Newsweek to be the most liberal of any of the weeklies as Jonathan Atler is the politcal head and he is flagrantly anti-Bush. (The link to his mag article is a Kerry/Rangel hit piece on instituting the draft. Pure Democrat demagoguery.)

All said, though, most other polls will show a narrowing in the President's numbers. The question is whether any of the major ones (NBS/WSJ, ABC/WaPo. USAToday/CNN/Gallup, CBS/NYT) will headline a registered voter tally if a likely voter one is available.

(There is also no identication right now of the party id of the Newsweek poll.)

How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence

(My guess is this will take-up four full pages in tomorrow's paper.)

Sounds like the NYT helped push the aluminum tube theory.

After the 90-minute session, J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, told Fox News that Mr. Cheney had provided new information about unconventional weapons, and Fox went on to report that one source said the new intelligence described "just how dangerously close Saddam Hussein has come to developing a nuclear bomb."....A few days later, on Sept. 8., the lead article on Page 1 of The New York Times gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unnamed senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program.

As the DOE is used as solid refutation throughout the artile, this stands out:

The Energy Department helped solve the problem. In meetings on the estimate, senior department intelligence officials said that while they still did not believe the tubes were for centrifuges, they nonetheless could agree that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capability

The response of a Saddam-controlled engineer is defintive refutation?

Why order tubes with such tight tolerances? An Iraqi engineer said they wanted to improve the rocket's accuracy without making major design changes. Design documents and procurement records confirmed his account.

A very long piece without irrefutable conclussions. Sort of like the 19,000-word windmill Howell Raines et al did in summer 2001.

Friday, October 01, 2004

de Gaulle and Verification

So the fact-checking begins.

This is what Josh Marshall and Paul Krugman feared. Of course, they called it Republican spin.

On the score of who has to have more facts checked, the President is on solid ground. His answers were consistent. (Some say "repetitive" but I prefer to morph with the analysis.)

As Kerry had to demonstrate his knowledge of details, he offered more places to get a few wrong.

Global test. He'd be a force in a country without the wherewithal to be a global leader, either militarily or economically.

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Kerry Wins Debate, But No Change

To supoort my prior post, ABCNews shows a 4 point Bush lead pre- and post-debate.

Good presentation for Kerry, but bad positions. He is similar to the high school debater who is assigned the crappier position. "Mr. Kerry, take the pro-slavery side."

The contemporary version woudl be, "Mr. Kerry take the pro-Saddam side."

Oh. That's not a hypothetical.

Gallup poll

53% said Kerry won the debate. This is a far cry from who will be elected.

The sample was 52-44 fr Bush prior to the debate. This is purely informational as no post-debate preference was asked.

As the sample was consisted of more Bush supporters than Kerry ones, it is no surprise that Bush is still favored on every question except who won the debate.

The deeper spin of the poll by Democrats could use the "over-sampling" of Bush angle.

Unfortunately, this oversample matches the polling results of Gallup so the poll is representative of the country at that point.

There is deep concern for Kerry as he did not persuade any of these voters that he had better psotions.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?