How Big Of A Bounce?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
haha, you're saying he wanted to put more cops on the streets as his speech - sorry, not buying that, I think every politician for the past 30 years has said that. Way to go out and say something different...

this guy was in vietnam for under a year's time. .. he acts like he was in the blender for years. give me a break with all his vietnam garbage. he did nothing but disrupt. listen to hannity, get a dose of reality.
 
I agree, nbc. However odowdpa's claim was that Kerry "did not once" speak of his record in the Senate, not that he put more emphasis on his military service than his service as a Senator. I was merely correcting an inaccurate statement, not making any further judgement about Kerry's speech.
 
odowdpa
We can do better, and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can-do people.

And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s: We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty. And we lifted the standard of living for the middle class.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read his speech and not only read journalists opinions about the speech?
And in the war forum you can read that he has plans for Iraq, maybe not as detailed as you want but maybe more detailed then the ones of "W".
 
Well, now that the personal insults have been flinged, as I just found out that I'm part "troll", I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this convo.

I'm simply offering the other side of the issue for many here. I feel like there are about 30 Kerry speakers here and 3 Bush supporters. Its good for you to know why people are so animate for Bush and what we're thinking. It wouldn't be fun to have people say Bush sucks and kerry rocks. Remember, its not just me being the troll, in your opinions, its half the country. Obviosuly no one is going to change their mind on the issues, as most already know who they are going to vote for. i.e. no bounce for the Dems during the DNC.

And remember, lets not hate each other on here, its just a difference of opinion.
 
You're trolling, odwopa. You opened up the personal attacks on Fizz in another thread. Me calling you a troll is not a personal attack. I'm just questioning your motives.

I could say far worse things about someone who thinks that Hannity is a "dose of reality."
 
Last edited:
Thatguy, come on now, you know how it works. Look at who is writing these articles. Remember, there are always motives. Its the far left writing these things on Hannity. And Hannity is a conservative, saying things about the left. Aren't those people and Hannity in the same boat? You just happen to support one side while i support the other. For all differences sake, we'll call all Media matters Hannity's little brother. I'm not bashing, but thats how it is, the right will talk smack about the left and vice versa...
 
So you're saying that they're lying and that Hannity is telling the truth? Are you refuting what Media Matters has to say? Facts are facts. You can spin them, but the facts themselves remain. Media Matters may have a liberal spin, but they're verifying statements as facts or untruths. Just because Media Matters is liberal and Hannity is conservative doesn't automatically put them on equal footing.
 
So, what you are saying is that MediaMatters is right and, to boot, has quotes from people supporting their theories (I'm speaking on the whole)?

They are a dime a dozen pub capitalizing on something they know lefties want to see and hear. I am actually a journalist myself, so I know how the game works. You can get anyone to support your stories if you want. I can go write a story saying some Americans are going to move to Mars because of the war and have some agencies backing up my line, doesnt mean its true...

facts can be twisted too ... if someone writes that Bush increases funds for the elderly, the same headline could read Bush raises taxes on...blablabla.....in order to raise funds, they have to come from somewhere. What i'm saying is look at the whole picture and ask yourself why is this being written.
 
Klaus, I understand what your saying, but i didn't mean us, I meant the media.. i.e., Hannity, Franken, O'Reilly, etc. They have their agendas and thats to further their party. They talk smack back and forth.

But I totally agree, no bashing here, just differences of opinions. Besides that, I'm better looking than everyone here so my opinions matter more ;) jk.
 
odowdpa
You are right with the media and i wanted to express my concern that the aggressive behaviour of the articles we read day by day can lead to a more agressive atmosphere on FYM than we want to.
Many good people left FYM because of that.

ps There are many good looking FYM'ers *laugh*
 
odowdpa, I'm not an idiot. I know why Media Matters is doing what they're doing. I've read David Brock's books, I know his leanings and why he's doing what he's doing. I don't accept everything Media Matters is saying as gospel. But I'd wager you would have a hard time disputing what they're saying.
 
The GALLUP polling organization reports that the 2004 Democratic convention is the first convention by EITHER party that did not produce a bounce for the candidate since the 1972 Democratic Convention where George McGovern was the candidate!

I think that is very signifcant. Kerry should have at least recieved a solid 6 to 8 point bounce, but instead he has lost ground. Your not supposed to lose ground after a 4 day convention like that. I don't care how polorized the electorate is. The convention is a 4 day opportunity to get some momentum and Kerry got none.

It does not mean Kerry is going to lose the election, but it is a missed opportunity and one the Democrats will not have again before election time.

The Republicans are now in the driver seat with their convention coming on August 30. Instead of having to beat back a Kerry bounce, the Republicans have the opportunity to break away from the dead heat. If they succeed in doing so in polling after their convention, the democrats will have to pray for a miracle in the debates. George Bush has gone elbow to elbow with John McCain and Al Gore, so this idea that George Bush will be easy to beat in the debates is simply wishful thinking.

The Republicans now have an opportunity that they would not of had, had the democrats recieved a bounce from their convention. The question now is whether the Republicans will be able to capitalize on this opportunity.
 
I just got in from a full night out (drinks were had, so excuse the misspellings) - the area was fortified pretty good. I have never seen so many guns out on the streets as I saw tonight. And a record number (from what I saw) of the Hercules Cops with the machine guns were out. Just an update on the Jungle's situation...

I'm obviously pulling for Bush, as you can tell, but if I were taking a non-partisan look - I would say the Bush administration is looking pretty good at this point. If you are not seeing that - then I don't know what your looking at. Kerry needs to turn to personal insults if he is going to have any chance. Obviously everything he tried at the DNC was a dud. Penn, Mich. Virg. and Fla never looked so big...

Looking at the GOP convention, Arnold Schwarzenager(?) Rudy and the big man, McCain, who dissed Kerry, are marked. How dare the man ask our chief for his VP? C'mon now...However Bloomy is an iffy on this one

Recap time on the GOP Convention...

Quick recap from Newsmax..

"GOP CONVENTION TO SPOTLIGHT MCCAIN, RUDY AND ARNOLD!
Newsmax ^ | 6/28/04

Posted on 06/28/2004 7:57:18 AM PDT by areafiftyone

he Bush White House has selected Sen. John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to give prime time addresses when Republicans gather for their convention this August, in a move designed to spotlight President Bush's centrist appeal.

McCain's starring Republican role is something of a finger in the eye to Democrats, who had pinned their hopes on the Arizona Republican teaming up with Sen. John Kerry in what experts called a political "dream team."

Story Continues Below

Kerry had reportedly asked McCain to run as his vice president no fewer than seven time in recent months, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. On Friday an embarrassed Kerry denied being rejected, saying he had yet to ask anyone to be his VP.

Giuliani's appearance is expected to highlight Bush's strong national security credentials, conjuring of memories of Republican leadership in the wake of the 9/11 attacks at a time when the city still remains under terrorist threat.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's prime time role suggests the White House has hopes of carrying California, where the newly elected Republican has managed to garner sky-high approval ratings. White House strategists are hoping his reputation as a moderate will help blunt Democratic criticism that the GOP has veered too far to the right.

New York Gov. George Pataki is also slated for a prime time address. Either Pataki or Giuliani is expected to renominate President Bush, a scene that is sure to further remind viewers of 9/11.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who secured the convention for the city - is not expected to play a major role. A nominal Republican, his lower profile at the GOP event is expected to help him maintain his centrist appeal as he begins his own reelection campaign in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans five-to-one."
 
odowdpa said:
I'm obviously pulling for Bush, as you can tell, but if I were taking a non-partisan look - I would say the Bush administration is looking pretty good at this point. If you are not seeing that - then I don't know what your looking at. Kerry needs to turn to personal insults if he is going to have any chance. Obviously everything he tried at the DNC was a dud. Penn, Mich. Virg. and Fla never looked so big...
Click to expand...

That's weird. According to recent polls, 58% of voters in New York are planning to vote for Kerry, and 30% are planning on voting for Bush. Additionally, only 37% of New Yorkers approve of President Bush's job performance, well below the national average of 50% approval. So it's odd that what you're seeing leads you to believe that the Bush campaign is doing well in New York.

Also, it's weird that you say that the only way Kerry can win is to resort to personal attacks, since that's what the Bush campaign is preparing to do. It's almost like you're posting from some sort of bizarro world where everything is reversed. Weird.
 
You know whats wierd, its that you only look at ONE State when their are 5-0.

hah, I have an idea, lets take a look through tunnel vision.
 
You live in fifty states?! I thought you were commenting on what you see "looking around."
 
ahh, smart response. i see you proved my tunnel response.

I read about the ongoings around me as well.

You obviously did a lot of research if you had to get numbers to back up your New York numbers. Dude, for real, if you had to get proof that NY was going Dem., you should not be posting here, go to amateur hour. I have an idea, have you seen the numbers for Texas and Calif. Which ways are they going again..........
 
So you'd rather I posted without proof? You're very confusing.

And if reading about the ongoings around you means listening to Hannity and reading NewsMax, then I can see why you believe as you do.
 
I do listen to Hannity daily, but thats not here nor there. And i'm not trying to start "little web fights" cuz thats stupid, I just felt i had to respond to your NY comment.

The fact is the Dems should have had a bounce and i know i said before that most people are set in their ways, which explains the non-bounce, but there is still 10% of voters out there wondering which way to go. why no bounce?

I just wrote something and deleted it cuz i thought i might be instigating, but, from the Dems response, is dean hurting you? pataki just called him a moron and Lieberman said ignore him pretty much. Should the sems keep him out of the light?
 
Because Dean is saying that the terror alerts may be politically motivated? That's a good question. I'm not sure how his statements are being taken by swing voters. It could be that he's hurting Kerry.

But I'll ask you this: when the authorities start letting trucks through on the bridges in NYc will it be because they have new information that al-Qaeda is no longer targeting those financial buildings? Or will it be some other reason?
 
It is interesting that the Dems dont have a bounce. Its probably because Kerry violated the number 1 rule. Never pick a running mate with more charisma than you do.

But I'll ask you this: when the authorities start letting trucks through on the bridges in NYc will it be because they have new information that al-Qaeda is no longer targeting those financial buildings? Or will it be some other reason?
Click to expand...
Now let me hear you clearly, this "other reason" you are not infering that the government would be allowing an attack to take place to create a "climate of fear" would you?
 
Last edited:
Or it could be that there are so few undecided voters. Remember, in 2000 Gore needed a big bounce after the DNC just to pull even with Bush. Kerry was already polling well before the convention, especially as someone running against an incumbent. I'll reserve any judgement on the doom and gloom scenarios until after the Republican convention.

Edited because you edited during my reply:

No, I'm not a part of the tinfoil hat crowd. However I do believe that the government is trying to create a culture of fear through the terror alerts.

They're closing the bridges to trucks because of the most recent terror threat. Tomorrow's papers will report that the intelligence that the most recent terror alert was based on was three or four years old. Now, it's not unreasonable to be concerned about any intelligence about al-Qaeda. But what I want to know is, when they do reopen the bridges will it be because they have new intelligence refuting the old intelligence? Will it be because they've caught the planners? Or will it be like it always is, because people would not tolerate bridge closures for years while the government sorted out its intelligence. They're closing the bridge now why? They don't have a specific date that the attack might occur on, the intelligence is very old. But they will reopen the bridges soon. Why close them in the first place?
 
Last edited:
They Still Can't Figure Out Why.....

So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce?

Pollsters and strategists are puzzling over Kerry's failure to get a boost from a convention that even critics acknowledged went almost precisely as planned. Polls show it improved voters' impressions of Kerry as a strong leader and a potential commander in chief. It burnished views of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
916
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
R
Help a MacPhisto out! - Night #2 (9/30) at the Sphere (pics and videos)
Replies
3
Views
750
Ralph_Sutter
R
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
12 13 14
Replies
401
Views
11K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
clerks
Second Favorite Artist
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sicy
Sicy

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom