People are getting a bit giddy with the new polling data, but we can not trust the corporate media or their polling organizations.
We can not trust them ever. Period.
This is a good time to see things from the larger perspective.
If Kerry wins it means that the following forces have been forced to loosen their grip on power;
the Bush clan and associates
the corporate media
the petroleum industry
the pharmaceutical industry
the health care industry
the military hardware vendors
the financial groups funding the military vendors
offshored international corporations
right wing religious industry and their Red state supporters
All of these very powerful groups now have a strong grip on power and they are not going to relinquish it as the result of one debate victory.
They can not be trusted not to do anything, including staged attacks against civilians anywhere in the world, or against key individuals anywhere in the world.
They will attack, undermine, destroy anything and anyone to hold on to their power and their control of the world's wealth and resources.
Quoting the Michael Corleone character in the Godfather film; "If history has shown us anything it is that you can get to anyone."
I wonder if people generally know what we are up against?
Deposing Bush and the entrenched powers that support him and the GOP will be as significant a victory as was stopping the Vietnam war in the seventies.
We might have a nice peaceful election where everyone is on their best behavior and follow the rules like a bunch of Sunday school kids,, but is that what history shows us is likely to happen when as much is at stake as it is in this election?
And not one newscaster with the integrity of an Edward R. Murrow.
Not one among the dozen who have earned multi-million dollar salaries, literally for decades, with enough saved apparently to have the guts or independence or class to stand up to the over-whelming pro Bush, pro-GOP media bias.
OCTOBER 1 - 7, 2004
When Might Turns Right
Golly GE, why Big Media is pro-Bush
by Nikki Finke
The evidence shows negative campaigning works to knock down the opponents numbere a few points and promoting phony polling data to discourage, demoralize and repress the opposition vote also works to take down the opponents vote a few points.
It does not matter if the negative campain is honest or valid and it does not matter if the polls promoted day after day are accrate, both will have their effect and will be believed by some.
A few points hear and a few points there and you've won a close election you might not otherwise have won on your merits.
CNN and the rest of the media, day by day are promoting these polls as if they are the gospel truth.
The story line is that Kerry now is so far behind Bush it is doubtful that he can catch up, unless he does something heroic in the debates.
In fact the pundets are saying Bush can show up and droll during the debates and still easily win the election. This is exactly how they managed the low expectations for the Bush 2000 debate performance.
But as the media says daya after day, Kerry has fallen behind and can't catch up.
That is how they are using these polls, which is an even more important fact than precisely how they fundged the polling data THIS time.
They, CNN others, continue to use national polls which in no way can be an accurate analog for a 50 state electorial election process. But Paula Zahn yesterday said, the national polls show Bush well ahead, 8%. Then she asks Candy Crowley how can the Kerry campaign possibly explain away these weak numbers?
Next week it will be, "Well ok Kerry did well in the debates, but he did not close the deal. The polling data ocntinues to show that Bush is ahead and it seems the debates just wont be enough for Kerry to catch up."
The most effective linguistic frame unites content and label to some important degree as the phase "war against terror" clearly does.
The extent to which this phrase accomplishes that and is also a cultural imperative, it has great influence on the persuadable and the entire political race.
I have to say that all to all of those arguing against these points your arguments have not persuaded me, and the universal rejection in the face of the clear emphasis on these points by by the Bush and Kerry campaigns in the day to day campaign language is "interesting".
I think another mechanism is at work here having to do with your resenting my personally joining you little debate society.
Thats ok I can take a little rejection, I'm up to it.
The frame is moveable (it is far from too late) and must be moved.
Without doing so Kerry continues at a key disadvantage, and when he moves THIS FRAME, he deposes Bush as king of the anti - terrorism hill, the last isssue where polling (if it can be believed) shows a Bush advantage.
The persuadable are the most likely to be moved by the semantic framing and are the least able to resist it with independent thinking on their own when it comes to that final moment when they have to pull the lever and vote.
Obviously I agree wth Chris's points and I feel very strongly about this.
The terminology has to be changed and Bush has to be challenged for his simplisitc approach to the issue, otherwise the cultural imperitives are on Bush's side, especially in the good old American heat-land amd among persuadables in the 1/3 non-party aligned who will determine the outcome.
A "war on terror" all terror, any time, any place and any terrorist can not be won. Even Bush admitted as much, but had to back track.
A war against certain specific terrorist, declaired enemies of the US who have taken action against us and who are identify-able could be won.
With that frame Bush's Iraq invasion is more than just incompetant, it is criminally negligent because it distracts from the legitimate war on enemies who have attacked us. Again, this has already been an important part of Kerry's framing of the issue and he is already responding to the importance of the issue.
That sort of reframing (limiting which terrorsts we should go after first and prioritize) is possible and is not too complex for the red-necked to perceive. It is an argument which highlights the folly of having spent $200 Billion plus so far and more t han 1000 American lives and having acomplished nothing against those who did attack us on 9/11.
Kerry and the Democrats broadly know this aspect of the issue, but as Chris stated they also need to move the lingusitic framing of the issue, or we could likely have the same results in 2004 as we had in 2000.
Well, let me express my respect for your differring opinion about it, but it is my perception that Bush and Rove see this as a key issue and it is a keystone in their posturing and portrayal of both Bush (macho-American, resolute, determined, unshakable, fearless, decisive, strong character - leader) and Kerry on the other (flip-flopper, irresolute, frechified surrender monkey, nuanced, cut and run, phony war hero, not fit to lead the nation or be president).
Changing the sub term "war on" to "struggle against" does not change anything.
As long as the link between the Iraq invasion and "war against terror" is seen as legitimate as Chris said, Bush has an advantage.
And you can see that Bush / Rove also perceive this and are very much on the defensive about it.
Every day they link the war on terror and the Iraq invasion on the one hand with the suggestion that Bush is resolute and determined verses Kerry who is nuanced and therfore implied irresolute on the other hand.
Wrong, in fact with the bogus claim about the economy improving recently polling data shows that the "war on terror" is still one of the top issues concerning people and it plays into the bogus "Kerry is a wimp - Bush is a macho super-hero" being played by the GOP.
Its an imperative which plays to the simple minded male ego which cannot be contradicted in rural non-urban American culture - Red states.
Are you an unwavering and resolute American macho like Bush or are you a frenchified wimp surrender monkey like Kerry?
I think your right about this and it would be helpful to suggest a way to reframe it.
One other necessary point is needed to move this forward.
Yes, it is plainly idiotic but when Bush recently correctly said the "war on terror" could not be won in a conventional sense - meaning don't expect the terrorists to formally sign an uncondtiional surrender document on the deck of a US battleship, he was right but was then charged by Kerry as having a defeatist attitude about winning the war on terror.
Kerry has as a result recently started emphasizing "I want to win the war on terror, and I believe we can do so." While implying Bush was defeatist about it, and Bush had to back track the statement.
So this shows that Bush is also trapped to a degree by the idiotic language that the issue has been framed wtih.
In fact, it is and has to be a war against certain specific terrorists.
Are we in the US at war with the terrorists from Chetnia who have attacked Russia? ... Should we be? Should we divert resources from the OBL hunt to fight the Chetin terrorists?
Are we in the US at war with the Spanish Basq seperatists? Were we in the US at war with the Irish terrorists?
If you accept the simplistic term "war against terrorism" and combine it with the other simplistic and idiotic Bush term "Your either with us or your against us and ypur with the terrorists", then these simplistic terms "logically" lead to the idea that we must have an all out war against all terrorists fighting against every legitimate government in the world at any time in present or future history, which is obviously an impossible task.
Bush included Saddam Husein in that overly broad group.
Democrats tend to see Saddam as having been a vile and murderous dictator, but not exactly in the same terrorist grouping as is Osama ben Ladin.
If Kerry wants to make the charge that the Iraq war was a problematic diversion against the fight against certain terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 he does have to narrow the target and reframe the issue.
I think this individual and his team are making a valiant effort, but I believe have some errors in methodology I hope will be discussed by this group.
In short they are grouping together polling data from all sorts of organizations - which individually use all different sorts of methods and criteria and then the color - graph the results on a daily basis on one current results electorial map and run a linear regression attempting to forcast an outcome in Novermber in another color coded electorial graph.
Here are my criticisms;
given the mix of data sources and methods the result tends to be that entire states flip back and forth from deep red one day to light blue the next (for example). I have called this "poll flapping".
running a linear regression against data from mixed sources and methods in my view really streatches the presumptions about what a linear regression is thought to possibly offer, a trend line among scattered data showing a consistent pattern within. Given the mix of sources and methods from the data sources, I think this is suspect in this instance.
Your constructive comments are sought in response.