Finally Newsweek does something right...

I've been waiting for the ost-debate polls to come out with some trepidition. While the consensus, even in the right-wing fantasy world of Bush-loving Muslim-hating Flintheart Glumgolds, has been that Kerry anihilated Bush , I've still been somewhat unsure of how the polling numbers will look a few days out. Especially considering all the bad polling methods being followed out there.

Now I've already posted yesterday about the polls that reflect the question of who won the debates. It was clear that Kerry won across the board. But the true question to be concerned with is the horse race in the light of this decisive victory. The first poll out is Newsweek's and it brings with it good tidings. And chocolates and flowers.

John Kerry now leads President Bush 49% to 46%. That's a 3 point lead. The same lead that Bush was showing over Kerry in many polls just days ago that had the media ready to declare a second Bush term. This is the first poll to suggest a Kerry lead in weeks. I'd call that a major change in the momentum of this election.

Let's just hope that the Kerry camp doesn't get as cocky and arrogant as Bush revealed imself to be Thursday night. They still have a month to go in this election, with 3 debates (counting Vice-Prez) to go. A lot can happen. They just need to keep up the good work and hammer Bush again and again.

And I think that will be a little easier to show in the debates on domestic policies. Because Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on. They only trouble might be in picking which issues to attack on.

Let Kerry be Kerry...

John Kerry took on some very complicated subject matter last night. He did not dumb down his answers. His answers were dense, trying to pack as much as he could into his 2 minute to 30 second time limits. It is not the kind of scripting you would get from a speechwriter. These were not the sort of answers politicians would usually show up with, canned and memorized.

And it worked.

Kerry won these debates hands down. Don't take my word for it.

CNN/GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17

ARG POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 52
Bush: 42
Tie: 6

Kerry was a stateman and Bush was a whining, petulant manchild. Kerry clearly had a keen grasp of the issues, while Bush simply repeated himself regardless of the question. Bush's pauses and silences just hung there in the middle of the room as if he was waiting for Cheney to come out and finish his nswers for him. People have been talking about what a stark contrast the Vice-Presidential debates are going to be, with John Edwards' smiling boyish features against Cheney's scowling Christmas-stealing demeanor. But I think last night was a contrast no one would have predicted. The president looked annoyed, rolled his eyes, turned away disgustedly. All in all, he was uncontrolablely angry because Kerry walked in there and took control of the room. Bush dosen't do well without loyalty oath-swearing fans applauding his smug arrogant lies. Bush can't perform underfire, while Kerry performas best there (both figuratively and non).

It's going to be a sweet October.

And don't Gore it up this time...

This is it. The election will most likely come down to the debates. I can not help but remain nervously hopeful, but the media is just dying to report this thing in Bush's favor. "While Kerry had a better understanding of issues, Bush was more effective in getting his message of 'Terrorism Bad' accross with his folksy plainspoken manner, even though this venue is not his strong suit." Be prepared to hear a lot of this crap. And don't you believe it for a second. The election is too important to let the media get away with making it a referandum on who you want to have a beer with this time around. It has to be about substance or we can all just give up now. And it's not the debates that are Bush's weakness but substance. The Roves and Luntzes of the world would have us all believe that George Bush is not good at debating and that everyone should have low expectations.

FIANLLY though someone has pointed out the obvious. Al Gore wrote in The New York Times yesterday a masterful Op-Ed about debating Bush. His advice was not to underestimate Bush, because despite what the right-wing would have us believe, he is pretty good in this format and that he's one debates against two highly respected orators (Ann Richards and Al Gore). He points out what has seemed obvious and confused me for quite sometime now:

And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

If we are to believe that this guy is terrible in speaking directly to the American people and defending himself during confrontation of his positions, then people should really think twice about electing him in the first place. But this is the first time in his career that the low expectations game is not going to work for him though. I take issue with the notion that he beat Gore at all, but that seems to be the way that history will see it. But after debating Gore and being declared the arbitrary winner for not fumbling all over himself and ticking Gore off enough to sustain one prolonged sigh, the media seems to have caught on that he is not going to trip or drool himself to a win tonight. And he shouldn't.

Tonight's debate is not going to be about Bush's debate record. It's going to be about his record as president. And in case you haven't been paying attention, it's not a good one. Bush is going to say things about bringing personal responsibility to Washington and paint himself as if he isn't a Washington insider again. He's going to pretend that he hasn't been president for the last 4 terrible years. He's going to smirk and stall and dodge the answers. But standing next to a tall John Kerry, he's going to look like a slimey little toad who's too stubborn to admit he screwed up Iraq. John Kerry's going to stand up and say "This man lied to me. He lied to you. He lied to everyone in America and the world and it's time for him to go."

At least I hope so. Otherwise, we are all in for another four years of one looooong sigh.

"Gallup-ing to the right..."

A few days ago I wrote about bad pollsters and their terrible partisan methodologies. Well it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way. MoveOn.orgtook out a full page ad in The New York Times (page 5!) questioning Gallup's methods and numbers. Gallup is the biggest culprit in the bad numbers atrocity of current polling techniques. It's unfortunate that they also happen to be one of the most cited polls in mainstream press. If you haven't seen the ad, click the link. It's striking and effective. Not to mention dead on.

It's interesting to note though, that despite these bad polling techniques (essentially counting more Republican voters by a hugely irresponsible margin) their bias may be worsening, but their results in favor of Bush is not. After supplying CNN and USA Today with a poll two weeks ago that showed a double-digit Bush lead amongst likely voters that turned out to have a significant bias in its sample favoring the GOP, Gallup did it again yesterday. Except that yesterday, they not only did it again, they apparently felt that a 7% GOP bias wasn't good enough. So they perpetrated the same fraud upon the media (including their partners CNN and USA Today) and voters and this time used a 12% GOP bias in their likely voter screen. I kid you not. But this time the margin of fake-victory attributed to Bush is less. 52-44% Down from 55-42% with a smaller bias towards republicans. So it would seem even these horrendously bad polls are good for something. We can conclude that Kerry is doing even better than Gallup would have you believe.

The new Kerry, now with Kung-fu grip...

This is why they don't let the man do press conferences. (He has held only 3 since June, I believe.) Even on the friendly FOX news channel, during an interview to be aired on that lying splotchy bully Bill O''Reilly's show, President Bush can't help but get his silver foot stuck in his mouth.

President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from a television interview released on Sunday. When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

This can really translate into some major points if the Democrats start swinging back right aw-...

Oh, wait. This just in:

Kerry, arriving in Madison, Wisconsin for debate preparations, called the statement "unbelievable."

"I will never be a president who just says mission accomplished. I will get the mission accomplished," said the Massachusetts senator. "That's the difference."

I'd say that was pretty quick in fighting back. Let's hope they can prolong this asinine comment for the remainder of the week. I don't think it's enough to hit back. They need to keep it bleeding.

Yeah, the election has gotten me a little violent.

Next up: building a sukkah...

I understand why people decide to fast in order to show repentance and become closer to G-D. Not eating food for a day is probably the easiest way to throw your body completely out of whack. It makes you go out of your mind with hunger. So I suppose that if one wanted to hallucinate, oops, I mean talk to G-d directly, then not eating would be the fastest way to accomplish this.

One day doesn't sound that long and in the grand scheme of world hunger I am sure it isn't. But I have never tried it. And it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.

The largest hurdle? I was the only person fasting! In a house full of Jews!

My boyfriend, who I promised to fast along with for moral support, lasted a total of 4 and a half hours. We ate before our road trip and by the time we got to Brookline, he decided that being hungry was more important than being Jewish. If it wasn't for the fact that he has very little, if anything, to atone for, I would be mad. But he's a good kid throughout the year. So I can't hold it against him.

All day long food was being eaten or prepared and my stomach was screaming obscenities at me. "How dare you pass on that sandwich, you F#@$%*& A@#$hole!" "You won't let me partake in that cake, you little s#@$! For shame!" There is nothing worse than an indignant, pretentious stomach with a patty mouth.

Despite my whining and moaning about it though, it was nice to know I have the will power to accomplish a one-day fast. Maybe I'll try the whole unleavened bread thing at Pesach this year.