I just took a look and it’s showing:
Kerry 47%
Bush 45%
Neither 1%
Tie 7%
Is this a continuously evolving poll?
See, I missed your post…and no, it’s not evolving, because we posted the same numbers! 
All that means is that the Democrats are better at spamming internet polls. Those polls are worthless. No one watching those debates is going to believe that an unbiased sampling of the population throught that Kerry won it by an 88-12 margin.
Not evolving:
On the top it says:
0/09/2004 - Updated 12:54 AM ET
which is about an hour ago.
No, the poll is not evolving. It would appear flickster is misreading the lines.
Bush had 37% 2004 Sept 30
Bush had 45% 2004 Oct 8
Not sure where the 15% tie comes from though.
Does anyone have problems with Kerry stating that he’s Catholic, considers that life starts at conception, yet supports federally funded abortions and stem-cell research? I do.
Well, I missed the debate tonight unfortunately. I was out of town for a wedding, and only just got home. I’m also drunker than a skunk ALREADY, without playing the drinking games.
I obviously can’t comment about the debate…I just wanted to comment about the posts in the thread real quick. I’ve just read through aprox. 12 pages of complete kumbya Bush bashing at its best…and in the final two pages, if I’m getting this right (and disreguarding the ‘online polls’ which handly gave the win to Edwards over Chaney in the VP debate :rolleyes: ) people are now saying…its a draw??? Something like 10 pages of Kerry making Bush his ‘bitch’ in various and colorful ways…and then folks come out and say well maybe its a draw???
I remember similar things in the Edawards/Chaney debate thread (which I did see and seemed to ME to be pretty much a draw)…and similar results from on-line polls. So how am I to take this? I’m starting to think that the way to take this is to read a (political/Bush) thread (on this board) and then pick the opposite of whatever the overall consensus is. Can no one on this board at least ATTEMPT to be rational and non-partisan, to analyze without the requisite ‘shrubya’ digs, blah blah blah?
Christ, I originally came on this board because of my respect for the posters here…especially in GD. But when it comes to Bush, I don’t think there are many posters that can analyze the man from a dispassionate and objective view point. 
Well, I’m probably drunker than any of the debate drinking game people here, so I’ve probably gotten myself into all kinds of trouble from the mods…and I didn’t really add anything to the debate analysis (since I didn’t see it), so I’ll sign off here. I’m really disappointed…not that I’m sure anyone will shed any tears over it. Anyone know if anyone is posting the debate on the web so I can watch it for myself tomorrow?
-XT
No. It just means that he doesn’t think all taxpayers have to agree with his particular religious beliefs. I find it incredibly comforting, personally.
Am I the only one who thinks Bush alienated a fair numberof undecided voters tonight? The guy was a classic example of barely-contained anger management; I don’t think undecided voters are out there going, “Yeah! I want a borderline psycho with his finger on the button!” 
And I will readily admit that Bush did better tonight than he did last week. But then, considering how badly he cratered last week, the only way he could have done worse tonight was to not show up. 
Nope, I don’t have a problem with either of those issues. Abortion = choice, and stem-research could potentially provide us with cures for many diseases. Politics and religion don’t mix.
No.
IOW, he’s actually going to respect the fact that not everybody in this country shares his religious views. I know, it’s wacky. But it’s so crazy, that it just might work!
According to http://andrewsullivan.com/
ABC’S INSTA-POLL: Kerry 44; Bush 41; Draw 13.
On Abortion:
Mario Cuomo was once challenged to defend his position on abortion. He did so; the transcript is here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomoreligiousbelief.htm
Do you have problems with pacifists having to pay taxes for the military?
I think Kerry alienated a couple hundred Missourians (sp?) when he made the comment that only 3 people in the room (him, Bush and the mod) will be the only ones paying higher taxes, inferring that they are the ONLY ones there making more than $200K, as if everyone else was trailer trash. “Elitest” comes to mind.
Uh, George, did you happen to catch the Duelfer Report? You know, the one you comissioned? 'cause it says right – just like in the one you commissioned before that one – there that the sanctions were working really, <u>really</u> well. In fact, Saddam had absolutely NO WMDs to give to ANYONE.
Tell me again, how’d this guy get into the WH? Never mind. Don’t. That’s one nightmare I can do without.
As for the debate as a whole, if you’re into raging lunatics (steroid shots over the past week?) spewing lie after lie, no question, Bush is your man. Could Kerry have lowered the hammer on him even harder? No doubt – I was salivating at some of the openings myself. But one needs to remember he’s not debating for his partisan base (those are a given) but rather for that diminishing number of idio…er, voters, that can’t seem to make up their fucking minds and whose ultimate decision might well determine the final outcome of this election. From that prism, I thought he was great and very much in control throughout the proceedings. If there was a guy out there looking and acting Presidential, it certainly wasn’t the incumbent.
Kerry using the “Catholic” card to pander for votes, was insulting at best…and you Blalron, know where I stand on the abortion issue. As for the pacifist paying for the military…apples and oranges.
I am a recent medical school graduate, one of those categories that is generally throught of as the upper division of incomes.
Unless my career as a writer takes off in the next few years, I doubt that I will ever make more than $200,000 a year.
Oh, if only I was the trailer trash that made $100k a year.
Bizarre, when I think of “elitest,” nothing comes to mind.