(no subject)
Sep. 29th, 2004 02:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
And this is saying nothing about the article itself, which is about how the wicked and cowardly Democrats hope to steal the election through massive voter-registration efforts. Um... whuh... huh?
It really is an entirely different world, over there 'mongst the Reds.
I am nervous about the debates. I posted this confident ruh-ruh thing last week, but have since learned that the conventional wisdom stacks things mightily in Bush's favor; he has, they say, won every debate he's participated in. Kerry himself has said this.
GWB oozes with camera-friendly charisma, and will have a lot of soothing words for Themerican People, and a lot of winking smirks for his opponent, who I understood was almost late for the debate because he kept having to return to his office to put on a different color tie, wink, smirk, say no more.
A big difference between this and his previous debates, though, is that forty-five percent of his audience is guaranteed to meet his mugging with vein-popping rage. I don't know how or if this will affect that precious middle ten percent, them who's in the purple states. I pray that they can see though the smirking. I can't say. Very nervous.
Yes, I should be in bed now. Good night.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 11:22 pm (UTC)Wisconsin
Date: 2004-09-28 11:53 pm (UTC)By the way ... Since you've pointed to it earlier http://www.electoral-vote.com currently has Wisconsin as a 'Strong Bush' state (52% Bush, 38% Kerry, 4% Nader) -- I don't believe these numbers for a minute. Previous polls had this number MUCH closer (and usually in favor of Kerry) and I find it hard to believe opinion has shifted that much ... unless Kerry pissed Wisconsinites more than I thought by calling Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) 'Lambert Field' during a speech he made in the state.
Nader, by the way, will NOT be on the Wisconsin ballot this year. I do expect a number of write-ins though, which will kinda suck because they're annoying to process at the end of the night (yes, I'm going to be a poll-worker at this election).
Re: Wisconsin
Date: 2004-09-28 11:59 pm (UTC)Re: Wisconsin
Date: 2004-09-29 10:40 am (UTC)Good going on the poll-working. I think I might do something like that myself, in the not-to-distant future. Lately I've been having the urge to get my hands a little dirtier with politics...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 08:29 am (UTC)Still you have every right to be worried. My research shows that Bush could do exactly as you are suggesting - but more so - he could be completely undeserving of any positive result after the debate - making this all even far less "fair and balanced"...
Oh... and 45% of those in the debates will not be full of rage - last I read, it will be some Bush supporters, and mostly undecided voters (who could arguable be labeled the slowest SOBs on the face of the earth).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 02:02 pm (UTC)Gore utterly wiped the floor with Bush in that first debate, at least by any actual debating standard. I listened to a good part of it on the radio and remember thinking so at the time.
What I didn't know at the time was that the immediate audience polls agreed as well.
Our reception cut out about 2/3 of the way through (we were travelling on the far side of the Cascades at the time), so I missed the end and the initial punditry (which apparently was also pronouncing Gore the winner).
But by the time we got back the next morning, the media had gotten their act together and settled on the narrative about how Bush did "surprisingly well" and how Gore's sighing outraged people.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 09:42 am (UTC)personally, i don't think he is going to come off as well as expected. he's not so much a thinking on the spot kind of guy.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 11:36 am (UTC)It's all about the expectations.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 01:47 pm (UTC)so the counterpart is:
"he is so good because he mass-debates!"