« Needs a snarky caption | Main | Stalwart defined: Australia hangs tough, re-electing John Howard »
Friday, October 08, 2004
Beldar's take on the second presidential debate
Uncontaminated by other punditry:
Admittedly a nit: John Kerry in the second debate, after a question about why he picked John Edwards as his running mate: "I'm a lawyer too." You have a law degree, Senator. But you're not currently licensed to practice law.
Weirdest reference: Dubya talking about the Dred Scott decision.
Dubya feeds off an audience's energy, and this format suited him better. He was on his game tonight — not necessarily the sharpest he's capable of being, but far, far better than he was in the first debate.
Kerry also was at his best, or near it. But the format suited him less well. Plain-spoken citizen questions sometimes put him on the spot — most obviously the brave, blunt question from the woman asking about federal funding for abortions.
I score this debate as a Bush win, viewed in isolation. Discounting for my admitted bias, it was at worst a draw for Bush. Big picture, strategically for Bush, that's still a win.
Posted by Beldar at 09:45 PM in Law (2006 & earlier), Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar's take on the second presidential debate and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» Debate Wrap-Up Redux from ~Neophyte Pundit~
Tracked on Oct 8, 2004 11:31:43 PM
» Second Debate Appears Divided Along Parisian Lines from bLogicus
Tracked on Oct 9, 2004 1:16:44 AM
» Debate: Abortion from ProfessorBainbridge.com
Tracked on Oct 9, 2004 1:35:53 AM
» BeldarBlog: Beldar's take on the second presidenti from The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
Tracked on Oct 9, 2004 8:06:21 AM
Comments
(1) Boatswain made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 9:48:15 PM | Permalink
this was a ridiculously biased bunch of questions in favor of Kerry. Bush still won. by a hair.. by an rch... its a technical term.
i agreen with you squire. good show.
(2) Steel Turman made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:06:03 PM | Permalink
Beldar, I listened AND watched the debate.
W kicked ass. Kerry stumbled over his tongue.
I am impressed by Bush's assurance and I know
the undecided will be as well.
I won't contain my glee over Kerry's stiff,
often garbled and rote replies to what were,
essentially, easy and basic questions.
I thought the audience loaded with Bush
favoring questions. Kerry got bushwhacked.
Kudos to Gibson.
It WILL make for great theater come next
meeting.
But ... come next Tuesday, W will be 5 points
ahead of where he is now in all polls.
He REALLY did do fine. COMMANDING.
(3) brandon davis made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:10:35 PM | Permalink
----------------------------------
Mill Owner Bush
-----------------
(speak in an exagerated W Texas drawl ...make it sound like Will Rodgers)
1. I own a sawmill? (puzzled look)
2. Hmm ...news to me .... (thoughtful look)
3. ...Heeeyyyy, you wanna buy some wood? (big mischievous grin)
Home-run.
----------------------------------
Kerry On Abortion
-----------------
1. Well I "respect" you ma'am, but your federal taxes are going to be used to pay bloody butchers to pierce the thinking brains of silently screaming infants a week short of delivery. Deal with it.
Unmitigated disaster. He hasn't figured out that not all voters live in liberal Massachusetts. Bye-bye flyover country.
And what's with this "I have a plan ...plan ...plan ...plan ...plan" stuff? Both Kerry AND Edwards seem to end every third sentence with "AHHHHH HAVE A PLANNNNNNN".
(4) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:23:44 PM | Permalink
Home Run? LOL. The President, in Texas fashion, was swinging a SanAntonioSlugger.
(5) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:25:10 PM | Permalink
I wondered at the time if Kerry found that little tidbit on factcheck.COM, but nahhh.
Couldn't be...
(6) brandon davis made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:32:05 PM | Permalink
Actually, "Cap'n DOC", I'm listening to a talk radio show right now, and not only did the political wonkie guest (a semi-regular ...he's a closet lib', but he's not overt about it), mention that "anybody need some wood" line as his favourite line of the evening, but TWO callers have also mentioned it.
Pretty good call, I think.
(7) Chuck made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:32:05 PM | Permalink
I agree that Bush was in his natural environment tonight, and he did well despite his response on abortion. Even though I agreed with Kerry's response on this issue (abortion), there's no way in HELL that I'll vote for him.
Chuck
(8) Polaris made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 10:45:57 PM | Permalink
I also loved the "anybody need some wood" like myself. He called Kerry an idiot without ever saying so and completely discredited the Senator's speach before with just one line.
-Polaris
(9) Rosco made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:32:21 PM | Permalink
My fiscal conservative, social liberal Harvard undergrad + grad, financial wizard wife -- as independent a voter as you'll ever find -- stood up called Kerry a liar when he looked into the camera and said he wouldn't increase taxes for anybody making below $200,000. She's a smart one and has been telling me for weeks that there just isn't enough money (taxpayers) above $200,000, even at the Clinton tax rates, to pay for all the new spending Kerry wants. She doesn't believe the House is going to go Democrat and thus he'll never get an increase through the House, at least in his first two years. She said just wait, if he gets elected, until he tries to explain to all of the people working their butts off in two-income households in Silicon Valley, or Boston, Atlanta or Denver that he needs to come down and tax everything above $125,000, maybe as low as $110,000, in order to get enough money to pay for it all.
Since she was pissed I swung for the fence and reminded her that Kerry wants to raise the wage ceiling for collecting Social Security payroll taxes. ;-D
(10) Neal Kimmel made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:33:39 PM | Permalink
All of a sudden Kerry has a (THE) plan for everything. Where was all of this inspiration for the past 20 years?
(11) Rock made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:41:03 PM | Permalink
The best moment was when Kerry was talking about his tax increase for those making over $200K, and said to the audience:
"You LOSERS will never make $200K, so don't worry about it".
OK, that's not an exact quote, but it shows his total snobbery. The transcript says:
Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.
And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
(12) Joe made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:46:36 PM | Permalink
The MSM can spin it all they want (and I think they were going towards the hundreds of thousands of RPM, last time I checked) but GWB cleaned Kerry's clock tonight. Not a KO, but a total win on points. In fact, judging from the way the Senator walked around his side of the stage, he was literally staggering, or at least limping - I wondered for a bit if he had suffered a knee injury in the last few days. Bush got in some good hard shots as well as a laugh line ("anyone want some wood?") that will be repeated for the rest of the campaign, and Kerry opened himself up to _bad trouble_ with Catholics in the swing states of OH and PA on abortion.
(13) Tau made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:53:01 PM | Permalink
Unfortunatly the futures aren't seeing this as a Bush win...however, just a few moments ago he was down 5 pts...now only 3.5...now 3.6... now 3.0
Kerry steady at +4.9
http://www.tradesports.com/
What I don't understand is how people can make a decision about the presidency based on a verbal performance. Yea, Kerry was smooth and articulate, but Bush's response to the woman asking about tax dollars going to infanticed was unquestionably genuine, while Kerry's was so forced and cerebral that I could just tell he was lying about his personal views on abortion.
(14) GoMax made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 11:53:09 PM | Permalink
Gibson is the worst moderator I've seen. What are the rules about rebuttals? It seems like one of those times Bush was entitled a rebuttal, but they skipped over it.
And those weird interruptions about followups were weird.
"Moderator, Who's turn is it!?"
(15) goober made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:00:11 AM | Permalink
Geez, lets not debate abortion or Hussein again. I just can't take it anymore.
Why people don't ask questions about what might happen in the NEXT 4 years is a mystery. Like what will you do if Iraq needs 50k more troops in 2005? Will you heavily withdraw from Germany and S. Korea? What will you do if sanctions on Iran & N. Korea prove to be weak due to side-deals by other nations?
(16) Tau made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:10:04 AM | Permalink
Good point ROCK:
"You LOSERS will never make $200K, so don't worry about it".
Didn't think of it during the debates, but it's so to the point: Kerry already has more money than he'll ever be able to spend; he has so much that (as WSJ has pointed out many times,) he can afford to pay lawyers and finantial assistants to hide his wealth so that he won't have to pay taxes.
A tax increase will only incentivise others with vast amounts of wealth to hide it in trust funds and other tax loopholes.
This leads me to wonder why Teresa Heinz-Kerry won't disclose her taxes...
So if people making over 200K are going to begin hiding more of their income where will revenues come from to pay for social medicine?
(17) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:39:29 AM | Permalink
The tax question. As soon as it was asked, I started screaming, "you idiot! Don't leave it so "open"; point out all the "non-personal" income taxes that people can still be hit with". I remember the Clinton lesson. Then I realized I was wrong. My question would never has elicited a type of answer that I thought I'd never see again in my lifetime. Kerry looked right into the camera and gave us a "read my lips" moment.
I think Bush buried him on taxes - particularly with the look at his record. All that was missing was two things: 1) Bush needed to point out the 2.2 trillon shortfall was not "only his numbers" while doing the math - Kerry's short 1.4 - 1.6 trillion, 2) Kerry's already short, so how's he going to cut the (projected) current deficit of 2.6 trillion?
Bush won, not big, but he won. On style and substance.
(18) Jim in Chicago made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:43:08 AM | Permalink
Not only did Bush clean his clock, but Kerry looked like the walking undead out there.
Remind me again why Kerry won't release his medical records?
(19) Xrlq made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:47:28 AM | Permalink
Kerry is licensed to practice law, he's just inactive. Nothing wrong with that, nor with describing himself as a lawyer. If someone wants to hire him in that capacity, he can go active anytime he wants. I'm active in California but inactive in Arizona; can I still call myself a lawyer there? How about in the other 48 states where I'm not admitted at all?
Besides, most Americans don't like lawyers. The more times John & John remind us all that both are lawyers, the better. Don't discourage them.
(20) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 1:08:36 AM | Permalink
There were several Kerry gaffes, but my favorite is:
"Boy, to listen to that -- the president, I don't think, is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment."
"Now, if you're a Red Sox fan, that's OK."
(21) Al made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 2:02:10 AM | Permalink
Bush's (very risky, but grand slam home run possibility) to Kerry's line on tax hikes for just Kerry, Bush, and Gibson:
"How many people here have a gross income over $200,000? How many people do you employ?"
There's 500 people in that room. No one sitting in the audience is Bill Gates or a Rockefeller. I don't have an odds chart, but 5-10 people should meet that criteria as a guess. Established doctors of all stripes get up there with _gross_ pay. (Pre tax and pre malpractice insurance.)
(22) clt510 made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 3:19:30 AM | Permalink
Putting in my two cents worth, I thought Bush won on substance. Like all good lawyers, Kerry can spit a good line with the best of them, but he once again has made too many mistakes on substance.
The first debate Kerry won on appearances, but made a number of major gaffes which resulted in tactical gains but strategic losses (global test, North Korea, the bribed and the coerced, insulting our allies while building alliances are amongst them). He then had the temerity after the debate to say "we need a president who won't spit on our allies"!? I agree.
Tonight, his substance errors include defense of Kyoto (without explaining how this dismal treaty could ever be fixed), pro-life but pro-partial birth abortion, and Saddam in power is morally better than going to war. Just like the first debate, this leaves him with long-term strategic baggage he doesn't need, and there is still plenty of time for Bush to exploit this. In my judgment, when you toss in a draw or even loss on the ever-important "glitz" column, then it was definitely a rough night for Kerry with a couple of knockdowns and perhaps a TKO in the eighth.
The bottom line is that Kerry is still the "indecisionator". It took him four months to decide on a font for his bumper sticker. This level of "nuance" is fine for a Senator, but makes him ineligible for president
(23) geezer made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 3:50:17 AM | Permalink
Dubya's back in bizness, and that's that.
Mikey the Hutt is secretly happy, since he/she/it's well on his/her/it's way to zillionaire status by '08, even though Giuliani's bound to be swept in by a landslide.
Gawd, how good it IS to be a Republican nowadays!
(24) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 6:35:57 AM | Permalink
Bush won hands down. Kerry, as usual, was mired in contradiction:
Some Kerry contradictions during the debate: The words give the sense but are not exact quotes
The war is wrong but I will win it.
I'm a faithful Christian but favor partial birth abortion.
I will do better at arming the troops, though I voted against the 87 billion measure.
My 2.2 trillion$ health care plan can not be regarded as a large government program.
I favor free trade but abhor outsourcing
I will build a better coalition in Iraq but am critical of the present one of the coerced and bribed.
I favor internationalizing foreign policy but will deal bilaterally with North Korea and Iran.
I will increase taxes on the rich including small businessmen.
I could come up with others but enough.
Flip Flop won't be forgiven in Beantown for that ironic Sox slam, particularly on a night that the Sox clinched a series agains Anaheim,3-0
I'm a happy camper camper this morning with an important Bush and Sox win.
(25) Glen made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 7:38:10 AM | Permalink
First off, Kerry has never made $200,000. His wives have, but Teresa files separately, keeps her former husband's name and has a prenup and has enough shelter to pay in the minimum, 15% bracket.
Another thing that disgusted me last night was how smug Kerry was. He definitely is slick in that no matter how false his argument is he speaks with the same confidence. Then, it hit me. One can only struggle with words when one tries to be factual and truthful. Kerry is shameless in his pursuit of self promotion and can reel off such nonsense as "better, smarter, I have a plaaaaan" without any conscience.
I was amazed at how well he does this, then I remembered the Seinfeld episode where Jerry was badly in need of cover and was begging George, the master of lies, to teach him his secret. George first hesitates, then looks around before whispering, "It's not a lie if you believe it." Jerry was stunned at the profound nature of this. Just like "there is no spoon" in The Matrix.
Kerry is poised and confident because Kerry believes Kerry so he comes of much better than Bush in style points. However, Kerry loses during the following week as his statements get fisked and become campaign talking points. Compare Seifeldisms of Kerry vs. Bush.
"Voted for it, before I voted against it."
"Global test."
"Seared .... seared."
"I have a plaaaaan."
Kerry is adding to the pop culture things like "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." Who remembers what Bush said?
(26) Tau made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 7:43:16 AM | Permalink
I am not a sports fan, so I didn't get the "Red Sox" comment at all.
Would someone please explain.--Thanks in advance.
(27) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:07:32 AM | Permalink
Tau
"Now, if you're a Red Sox fan, that's OK."
In response to a Bush statement (the topic of which I forget) Kerry made the above statement, which most Beantowners took to mean that since the Sox seem fated to lose World Series to the Yankees, Bush made a losing statement.
A few weeks ar a New York fundraiser Kerry gave fulsome praise to the Yankees, thus proving his longstanding tendency to be a traitor when it comes to scoring political points.
(28) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:17:12 AM | Permalink
Tau
Kerry's saying Bush is not living in the world of reality. He's also saying that the Red Sox's are not living in the world of reality, because they keep hoping they can win the World Series even though it's been decades since they have.
Pretty cruel and thoughtless statement for a politician to make.
(29) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:32:32 AM | Permalink
"I'm a faithful Christian but favor partial birth abortion."
No. "I'm a Catholic."
Not a good one, I might add. He gave the Kerry answer to the young blond woman - No answer.
He said something about respect. I can't quote his entire response, but he avoided an answer.
I think the President just garnered an undecided vote.
(30) Sean made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:35:29 AM | Permalink
I am an unashamed right wing nut.
The difference is I do not hate the Clinton’s, Kerry’s, Kennedy’s or Daschle’s. I do totally disagree with how they in particular have divided this country with their lies, deceit, crimes, murders, rhetoric and overall low life habits. While the democrats attacked Reagan during the week of his funeral I was appalled. If Clinton dies tomorrow from not having a conscience I would be respectful, he was our nations President, and honor the position, respecting his right to a Presidential Funeral, even if I disagree with the man.
That to me is the huge difference between Republicans and democrats, Republicans vocalize their disagreements in rational, reasonable, logical dialogue while the other group rants, raves, attacks, and debases this country. Republicans are trying to build a better tomorrow through individual responsibility and the democrats wants everyone in bondage to big government programs.
Daschle did everything possible to obstruct this country moving forward. Anything in the past four years that would make Bush look good was fought against. Democrats are mad at Bush for stealing the election from Gore and have sabotaged this country in their hatred.
The only plans kerry-kennedy-Heinz has expressed is 1) I would do exactly what Bush did only better 2) I would do exactly the opposite of Bush and do it better 3) Everything Bush has done is wrong 4)Dean and Edwards were totally wrong in the primaries now they are totally right 5) I believe life starts at conception, we have pinkies in heaven, I support partial birth abortion 6) We should have had a summit on Iraq, we should not have a summit on North Korea
Give me a break, what rational person would vote for kerry-kennedy-Heinz, the democrats are only voting against Bush, against this Country, against logic and best interests of U.S.A.
johnnie - use some plain english/american and explain those plans to me and the rest of America. Is he trying to pull from Dr. King, I HAVE A PLAN, I HAVE A PLAN, I HAVE ...
Anybody need some wood?
(31) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:56:33 AM | Permalink
Sean - The quote was "Need some wood?" with a smile and a twinkle in his eye.
It will be remembered as an 'OuttathePark' HomeRun. He connected. BIG.
(32) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 8:58:58 AM | Permalink
Republicans think Bush won.
Dems think Kerry won.
What do the polls say?
Gallup shows Kerry beating Bush 47-45 and, more importantly, beating Bush among Indeps 53-37.
ABC has something similar. Kerry beat Bush 44-41 overalln and 44-34 among Indeps.
Better luck next time?
(33) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:01:44 AM | Permalink
GT - There's only one poll that matters...
(34) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:03:19 AM | Permalink
BTW, GT... I'm not a member of either party, but the political system is a matter of compromise. I vote for the man.
Kerry ain't Presidential material.
(35) MD made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:05:50 AM | Permalink
Good comments. If you're a Bush supporter, or leaning toward Bush, it was a thrashing. Bush articulated his worldview about as well as he could, without a written speech. Either you like it or you don't; he satisfied his supporters and enraged his opponents.
I think people underestimate the general hostility to partial birth abortion. I've seen some polling on this (the MSM never reports on these kind of polls), and an overwhelming majority of Americans are hostile to PBA. I thought Kerry stumbled very badly with that question; given his record, he needed to side-step it, and perhaps take refuge behind the Supreme Court. That would have been his easiest out, rather than self-indulgent talk about his personal beliefs and convoluted ruminations about federal abortion policy.
(36) Tau made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:07:29 AM | Permalink
Thanks Porcell and MaDr. Had to ask my spouse for whom the Red Sox played. That was pretty shrewd of Kerry--a round about self-effacing jibe. Now what is this "Curse of the Bambino" thing about? Is Kerry intimating that he's superstitious too? (Sincronicity: I just overheard in the next room that HBO is featuring a Program on Red Sox & the Curse of the Bambino. Probably won't have time to watch--soccer and flag-football games to go to.)
(37) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:11:47 AM | Permalink
Cap'nDoc
Vote for who you please.
Today's Zogby poll has Kerry leading Bush nationally.
(38) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:21:47 AM | Permalink
And that poll was completed WHEN?
Like I said... there's only one that matters.
(39) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:53:21 AM | Permalink
Yes, there is only one that matters. But we are all engaged in real time analysis because we enjoy this. If your argument is going to be that nothing matters except election day results then I wonder why you bother posting.
(40) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:06:54 AM | Permalink
Tau,
The curse of the Bambino has to do with a crass owner of the Red Sox who traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees for quick cash to buy a theatrical production that would star his actress paramour. Ever since, Beantown has been in the iron grip of this curse.
(41) Clayton made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:29:53 AM | Permalink
I've been somewhat daunted by the lack of specifics from both candidates in this campaign so, to the misfortune of both my migrane and my wife, I started trolling prior, during, and after the debate last night, trying to find relevant information. On Heritage.org, I found both an analysis of their respective health plans and a 13 page summary report of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the current state of the economy. After reading both, it is apparent (to me) that the economy appears to be doing what my personal perception of it was, which is pretty good considering the burst of the Internet bubble (predicted by Greenspan prior to 9/11), 9/11 itself, and the recent hurricanes. Much of the hype issues appear to be just that hype - sound bytes in search of substance. And that is where the problem lies. Lacking a broad education in a range disciplines, journalists appear to be constantly stymied by complex subjects that cannot be captured by the ubiquitous sound byte. Consequently, the reporting that they do on these subjects is often inaccurate and out of context. This appears to be particulary true concerning many of the issues with the economy. You can see this economic analysis at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm582.cfm
As for Kerry's health plan, it appears that even the Democratic party admits that it is too expensive to ever be implemented (estimated cost per person is around $50000). It makes no inherent changes to basic system, just expands the existing 'beast' as it were. Bush's plan is less expensive, and does not reach as many, at least in the beginning. However, it appears from the report to make basic, if incremental, structural/organic changes to the system that 'should' begin moving it in a direction that generally moves to decrease overall costs and increase coverage.
It is on the taxcut issue, where Kerry fairly 'froths' that I found the information from the CBO most interesting. It would seem from economic analysis done by the CBO, that all that Bush's 'tax-cut' really accomplished was to return the tax burden, as a proportion of the GDP, to historic 'normal' levels (ie prior to the tax increases inacted by his father and the Clinton Administration). IF allowed to expire, as Kerry fairly demands to do, taxes as a proportion of GDP, will rapidly expand to unprecedented levels, based on the CBO analysis.
That information taken with this analysis of the EU Productivity http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040811bb.htm
gives a fairly reliable, if bleak, predictor for the US economy under Kerry.
For me, it makes the choice more clear cut. I can understand the Bush's reluctance to use analysis results in a campaign that point out the failures in our 'allies' economic systems; after all they are also our competitors. However, the potential impact of Kerry's plan vs. Bush's does need to get out and I guess its up to bloggers to do it.
(42) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:39:12 AM | Permalink
I asked a question, GT. You failed to answer it. Why? Because you cited it, and you know damned well when Zogby completed his poll.
After I've read McAuliffe's spin on polling, I'd tend to think your rationale is every bit as spin-oriented as his is.
You did no better at answer my question than Kerry did answering his last night. MHO, of course.
(43) Tau made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:45:52 AM | Permalink
Glen:
Respectfully adding to your statement:
"First off, Kerry has never made $200,000. His wives have, but Teresa files separately, keeps her former husband's name and has a prenup and has enough shelter to pay in the minimum, 15% bracket."
Kerry has no accomplishment in the senate, barely attends meetings and yet draws a salary from the citizens of the country. I don't know what it is, but if it is under 200K, then why did he say that he was one amoung three in the room that would be affected by his proposed tax increase? Could it be because he shares in Teresa's wealth, regardless of the filing status, and by his own admission he in effect still makes over 200K.
Now, since Teresa does (for argument's sake, since I have no source that "proves" this) make over 200K AND currently shelters enough to put her in the 15% tax bracket, doesn't this only support the point that Kerry/Teresa have enough money to hire individuals that will hide their wealth? Now, if taxes go up, what will prevent them from scurrying to maintain or better that tax bracket?
Sorry, to say that Kerry never made 200K is marginalizing the reality of his complex and "nuanced" nubile situation.
Thank you for helping me to think this through, please point out any weaknesses you see in my arguement, I'm here to learn.
(44) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:49:38 AM | Permalink
There were two polls out post debate. Both showed Kerry winning.
We'll have to wait a few more days to see how it plays out in national polls. The more recent polls show the race basically tied but with Kerry growing in practically every single poll.
(45) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:51:41 AM | Permalink
Clayton,
You have the health plan all wrong.
As for taxes they will go up no matter who wins now.
(46) Polaris made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:11:22 PM | Permalink
Everyone,
GT is doing McCauliff style poll spinning. He won't answer when the Zogby sample was taken because it would discredit him. That answer is that the last Zogby sample was taken almost entirely after the 2nd Presidential debate AFTER the central and eastern time zones had gone to bed. That is shameless poll-pushing. Nothing less. I note by contrast that today's Rasmussen has Bush up by 4 at 50-46 with Bush hitting 50% for the first time of either candidate.
-Polaris
(47) Polaris made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:13:30 PM | Permalink
GT,
Look at the internals of the polls because the horse-race numbers are a tie. Bush completely undid the damage to his internals after the first debate and more.
More to the point the ABC poll showed that BUSH got a +1 bounce in the sample. Since flash polls don't normally change much, I expect the non-weighted polls to show a big movement to Bush by Monday or Tuesday.
-Polaris
(48) ncoic6 made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:30:35 PM | Permalink
Beldar:
I thought that this was a tie - with a tiny edge for Bush because of the inherent incompatibility of Kerry's plethora of promised new programs, promising to cut the deficit, while promising not to raise taxes on the tax base (i.e., middle income tax payers).
(49) Porcell made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:36:18 PM | Permalink
It takes about a week after a debate to get reliable poll data on its effect. Meanwhile, I use Trade Sport, which runs betting contracts on the presidential election. Bettors at this stage, putting real money on the line, are more reliable than early post-debate polls and spin. Today Bush is up 1.8 and Kerry even. Overall, Sport Trade has Bush at 56.4 and Kerry at 43.1.
Anyone interested Trade Sport can go to: http://www.tradesports.com/partners.jsp?ZID=1489&AID=1&CID=3
Another good presidential betting pool to watch is the Iowa Electronic Markets at:
ttp://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm.
I.E.M. has Bush up overall at about 57 to 43,
remarkably similar to Trade Sport.
BTW- Trade Sport and I.E.M. before Bush's first debate had him up about 66 to 34.
(50) GT made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 12:42:26 PM | Permalink
Polaris,
I don't know what poll you are referring to. The Zogby poll I am talking about came out today and is the tracking poll he is doing for Reuters (just like in 2000). Given his record in 1996 and 2000 I tend to trust him mnore than anyone else. He and Harris have the best record in recent elections.
There are now 3 polls out done post debate, all show Kerry beating Bush. More importantly, all show Kerry beating Bush more widely among independents.
In the national polls there are a few with Kerry ahead (Zogby, Democracy Creps (D), The Economist, and AP/Ipsos). Others polls have Bush ahead. But even the polls that have Bush ahead show Kerry better than he was 1-2 weeks ago.
The comments to this entry are closed.
