There was a debate????
 

That reminds me. I want my money back, you gonef!

more globL TESTS
 

They already do.

Every night when Rather and Brokaw and Lehrer take a seat.

There was a debate????
 

Yes, we did.

But when you decided that it was okay for him to question was "is" is, the new standard was set.

There was a debate????
 

Client pleaser.

There was a debate????
 

You know, the comparison to Clinton is hardly flattering for you. A great many Democrats were appalled by and disappointed with Clinton. They didn't agree that he should be impeached, but they agreed publicly that he was wrong. Remember Lieberman scolding him on the floor of the Senate? Now try to imagine a GOP Senator doing the same to (e.g.) Cheney these days.

There was a debate????
 

Well, if Cheney lies in an investigation under oath, I would hope someone would openly criticize him.

However, the circumstances you are comparing are hardly comparable.

There was a debate????
 

Can you point to a lie under oath to help us with visualization?

New Zogby
 

Get your bets down - http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...04-an1006.html

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-bat...d04-an1006.gif

Iowa
 

Less, where is Zogby getting his numbers? Because I read this earlier today:

Note that this poll was taken sponsored by a pro-Kerry 527

There was a debate????
 

I'm sorry, I thought you were just suggesting that a similar standard of truthfulness applies.

eta: That's a line I can see NRO getting behind: 'So Cheney lied to the American people; it's not like he swore an oath to tell the truth.'

Iowa
 

(1) There are so many state polls floating around that it's very hard to know which ones are worth paying attention to.

(2) According to an article I linked here a few days ago by Guy Molyneux in TAP, the important number to watch is not the spread between Bush and Kerry, but whether Bush is polling at 50% or higher. As a rule, incumbent presidents tend to poll just below or at the last polls, while the challengers pick up an average of 4% from the last poll. So I see the Iowa numbers that you posted here, and am heartened, because Bush is well below 50%. YMMV.

Iowa
 

This is the Zogby website - http://www.zogby.com . Problem is some of it requires paying him. Here is the FAQ - http://www.zogby.com/about/faq.cfm , containing the following:

I further understand (from a friend involved in the CA Republican party) that his decisions on whether a state will go Kerry v. Bush also considers built-in assumptions about voter turnout (heavier turnout favoring the Dems), as do other polls, but that he is assuming higher turnout than are others (and some of the others).

Here is his further breakdown of the post-debate numbers - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=874

Here is his methodology - http://www.zogby.com/methodology/index.cfm

He was the only one to get 2000 right - http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm

Here's an article about him, including discussion about how he was the only one to get the 1996 election right - http://www.chriscmooney.com/PDF/Zogby.pdf

That said, here is his own article about his fuck-up of the 2002 midterm elections - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=648

and here's an interesting study comparing 20 polls in the CA 2003 recall election and why they all basically suck - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004883/posts

Iowa
 

If I read that article correctly, its not "vote for" as the 50% barometer - rather, its "approval rating"

Iowa
 

The article is here. The second, third and fourth paragraphs say:

• Almost all poll reporting focuses on the “spread,” that is, the difference in the percentage supporting Bush and John Kerry. If we take an average of the most recent ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys, it shows Bush with 49 percent and Kerry with 44 percent among registered voters. Such survey results are invariably reduced to the shorthand “Bush up 5,” which sounds like a comfortable lead.
  
  However, in incumbent elections, the incumbent’s percentage of the vote is a far better indicator of the state of the race than the spread. In fact, the percentage of the vote an incumbent president receives in surveys is an extraordinarily accurate predictor of the percentage he will receive on election day -- even though the survey results also include a pool of undecided voters. Hence the 50-percent rule: An incumbent who fails to poll above 50 percent is in grave jeopardy of losing his job.
  
  But is it really possible for Kerry to close a 5-point gap, absent some fundamental change in voter preference? To find historical precedent, we must reach back in history all the way to 1996, the most recent incumbent presidential election. Bill Clinton averaged 51 percent in the final polls but received 49 percent on election day, while Bob Dole averaged 37 percent but received 41 percent -- a net shift of 6 points. Not only can Kerry close such a gap, it is extremely likely that he will.

I haven't trolled for other pollsters who agree or disagree with this, but the numerical support in the article seems fairly convincing. OTOH, four (elections with incumbent presidents) is not a huge sample size. (The article is a week old, so the reference to the most recent poll is not right any more.)

There was a debate????
 

That is Bush's portfolio -- and in forums accessible to the broader public, he reaches out subtly, almost in code. I recall at least two (one commentator said three) uncited biblical references and/or biblical-sounding phrases from his first debate.

"I have climbed the mighty mountain, and I have seen the valley below, and it is the valley of peace."

They know Shrub's their man, or close enough to get them to turn out for them. [They don't seem to notice that its 98% lip service with no real concerted action (but don't worry Bilmore, I'm not suggesting Bush is calcualting or anything.)]

S_A_M